The SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PETITIONS
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Marriage
RETAIN THE DEFINITION Of MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
We, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled, that the definition of marriage as "a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex "marriage", as proposed by the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children.
We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, he opposed.
from 716 citizens
Live Animal Exports
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia calls on the Australian Government to end the export of live animals from Australia to the Middle East.
We the undersigned therefore call on the House of Representatives to ensure that the Australian government ends this trade and, in doing, restore Australia's reputation as a compassionate and ethical nation.
from 10,808 citizens
Falun Gong
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that Falun Gong is a peaceful meditation practice based on the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance. Falun Gong practitioners in China have been subjected to the most brutal and relentless persecution by the Chinese Communist regime since July 1999, causing thousands to lose their lives from illegal detention and systematic torture. Such conduct stands in blatant violation to all international human rights charters that the Chinese government has itself ratified. According to investigative reports published by human rights lawyer David Matas and former Canadian Secretar y of State for the Asia Pacific, David Kilgour, tens of thousands of imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners have been subjected to forced organ harvesting for china's transplant market and lost their lives ( www.organharvestinvestigation.net ).
We therefore ask the House to request the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to openly and forthrightly call for an immediate end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
from 5,051 citizens
Easter Sunday
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
The Fair Work Act does not recognise Easter Sunday as a public holiday in the National Employment Standards. It does recognise Good Friday and Easter Monday.
Easter Sunday is a day of great significance for the 64% of Australians who identify as Christian and the 30% of Australians estimated to attend Easter Sunday Church services.
Easter Sunday is part of a recognised holiday break for all Australian people, Christian or not.
With the exception of Victoria, all mainland Australian States, as well as New Zealand, recognise the significance of Easter Sunday and require shops to close.
Indeed, the significance of Easter Sunday is widely recognised throughout the Western world by the fact that shops must close on this day in London, Paris, Rome, Milan and Montreal.
The Parliament of NSW unanimously legislated for Easter Sunday to be a public holiday.
We therefore ask the House to:
Amend the Fair Work Act 2009 so as to include, in the National Employment Standards, Easter Sunday in the list of recognised public holidays.
from 47 citizens and 96 citizens
Ahrens, Dr Christoph
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the situation of Dr. Christoph Ahrens a German born orthopaedic surgeon who provides much needed care in an 'area of need position' in rural New South Wales. Dr. Ahrens has practised as an orthopaedic surgeon in Bega for almost six years. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has requested for Dr. Ahrens to leave Bega, revert back to a trainee level and gain experience in spinal and paediatric surgery. These subspecialties are inappropriate to practise in a rural practice like Bega. He then would have to pass a full registrar exam, which again in many aspects is not relevant to his current practice. Dr. Ahrens' orthopaedic practice has been highly appreciated by the medical profession and patients of this area. His desire to remain practising in Bega is strongly supported by the Bega Medical Staff Council and the local community.
If Dr Christoph Ahrens were to be deregistered it would affect up to one hundred thousand residents of the far South Coast. Waiting lists for the residents of the far South Coast are likely to increase from one to two years. Trauma related orthopaedic surgery would be immediately reduced and not available every third week. Dr. Ahrens last working day will be the 30th June, 2011.
We therefore ask the House to urgently act on this situation to retain Dr. Christoph Ahrens in our rural community.
from 3,553 citizens
Marriage
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of concerned citizens, in support of marriage as currently defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) draws to the attention of the House:
that on 8th November 2010 the House of Representatives endorsed a motion that said "That this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents' views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage. "
that marriage is currently defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) as being … the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
that each element of the definition of marriage is essential to its integrity, particularly with respect to the welfare and wellbeing of children;
that marriage is a "keystone" institution on which our society rests;
that marriage provides for a stable family structure and is the ideal environment in which children are raised and nurtured; and
that marriage is worthy of ongoing protection and support.
We therefore ask the House to maintain support for marriage as currently defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) and reject any proposal to amend its definition.
from 32 citizens
Gambling
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of the Sawtell Bowling and Recreation Club Limited draws to the attention. of the House our objection to the introduction of Legislation to introduce mandatory pre Commitment for individuals who play poker machines in. Clubs and Hotels.
We therefore ask the House to stop the introduction of mandatory pre commitment for poker machine players
from one citizen
Australia Post
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition from concerned citizens of the City of Wanneroo, Western Australia draws to the attention of the House the unsuitability of the current location of the Wanneroo Post Office which is presently sited external to the new Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre.
The current location of the Wanneroo Post Office is unsuitable and would be better suited within the new Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre because:
(1) the present location of the Post Office fails to cater for the needs of the present population or the aged, disabled (either walking or in wheelchairs) and young mothers with prams. The level flooring already in place in the new Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre would alleviate all these problems.
(2) Vehicular through traffic is daily becoming more dangerous for those people reversing their vehicles, or for those walking from their vehicles to the Post Office. There is no Zebra crossing for pedestrians. An extra plus is the fact that the new internal shopping centre location would provide extra service by way of the Post Office being open for business on a Saturday morning.
We therefore ask the House to:
support our request for the relocation of the Wanneroo Post Office from its current location to a site in the confines of the new Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre.
from 481 citizens
Aviation
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of certain citizens of Rockingham Beach, Western Australia, draws to the attention of the. House, the noise created by civilian aircraft doing aerobatics. As they do their maneuvers, screaming up and down, close to our homes in Rockingham Beach, W.A., every day all day, and occasionally right over our homes and gardens, this noise from their engines impacts on our quality of life. Two people in an aircraft doing aerobatics create continuous high-pitched noise unlike aircraft just passing overhead.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to restrict aircraft from doing aerobatics so close to our residential homes in Rockingham Beach, W.A., so that the noise and possible dangers from this type of activity does not impact on our day to day living.
from 2,988 citizens
Education
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This Petition of the undersigned draws the attention of the House to significant community concerns over the overt and explicit Islamisation of Australian school-age children through the agency of the text-book "Learning From Anothers" Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools" which is to be introduced into our schools in the coming year.
1. I n breach of the Australian Constitution Preamble and section 116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
2. Academically inaccurate .
3. Intellectually dishonest.
We therefore humbly request the House to withdraw this resource, and discontinue in-service immediately.
from 579 citizens and 146 citizens
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of Australian citizens draws the attention of the House to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's decision to cancel its broadcasting of lawn bowls on free-to-air television.
The ABC has a Charter set out in section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 that states it should broadcast programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community and further requires it to provide a balance between wide appeal and specialised broadcasting programs.
Lawn bowls is one of the highest participation sports in Australia with around 800,000 people playing lawn bowls each year.
66% of participants in the sport are over the age of 60 but it appeals across generations with many younger people participating socially in the sport, as well as children participating through structured programs such as the Australian Sports Commission's Active After Schools Program.
Bowling clubs are an important part of the Australian community, particularly in rural and regional Australia.
Over 300,000 people nationally on average view the bowls broadcast each week, increasing to just under 500,000 people for major tournaments.
The broadcast of lawn bowls on free-to-air TV not only provides a service to existing members but promotes and profiles lawn bowls to prospective participants.
We ask that the House support the immediate reinstatement of lawn bowls on the ABC.
from 3,387 citizens
Taxation
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
NSW Citizens' Petition
DEFINITIONS:
GNSW Government of New South Wales
NSW State of New South Wales
LHPA NSW Department Primary Industries, Livestock Health & Pest Authority
AC The Australian Constitution
Excise Tax calculated by estimated numbers of livestock (carrying capacity)
We, the undersigned, alert the House to contraventions of AC by GNSW.
Citizens are qualified for the Excise by LHPA:
1 . acco rding to hectares exceeding LH PA thresholds,
2 . location of hectarage,
3 . uses to which land is not put.
Citizens are compelled, without recourse, to pay the Excise under threat of being sold up without notice.
This Excise is unconstitutional because:
1 . calculated by stock numbers, it's an Excise contrary to S86 & S90 (AC). Excises are the exclusive domain of the Executive Government (Commonwealth) thereby prohibiting GNSW from imposing Excises,
2 . S92 (AC) says; trade between States, shall be absolutely free. Only GNSW imposes Excise making trade with NSW not free.
3 . it's discriminatory - imposed on NSW qualifiers only. By ignoring the LHPA Excise, Commonwealth is guilty of discrimination, contravening S99 (AC).
We therefore ask the House to call on the Commonwealth Government to:
1. investigate GNSW legislation,
2 . consider Excise definition,
3 . ascertain Excise contravention of AC, including S92 (preventing free trade between States) and S99 (discrimination),
4 . issue a statement on the constitutionality of Excise,
5 . if Excise is determined unconstitutional, request GNSW to repeal Excise funding legislation,
6 . assist with legal recourse for Excise payers to recover amounts extracted unconstitutionally by LHPA.
from 156 citizens
Asylum Seekers
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of Australian citizens and Residents
Draws to the attention of the House: End Australian Mandatory Detention Regime
We therefore ask the house to: Take all available steps to ensure that all refugees and asylum seekers detained in Australia are released into the community as soon as possible. Australia needs to have an understanding of the plight of refugees and asylum seekers worldwide and treat people with respect. We ask the house and it members to urge the government to:
Ensure Australian immigration laws apply equally to all Australian territories-onshore and offshore. The excision of islands in Australian territory from the migration zone and all boat arrivals being processed outside the mainland jurisdiction discriminates against asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia.
End Mandatory and Arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and consider more effective, humane and legal alternatives. The use of Mandatory and arbitrary detention of asylum seekers as a deterrent to others seeking asylum goes against the UN refugee and human rights conventions.
Make Australia's refugee policies part of a global solution for victims of war and persecution. To achieve this, the government should ensure that refugee communities have a more active participatory role in the policy making process.
Ensure independent bodies such as refugee advocacy groups and humanitarian organisations are part of a more transparent and accountable refugee and humanitarian visa application and settlement process.
from 233 citizens
Mental Health
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
We, the residents and health professionals of the Bass Coast area, seek to draw to the attention of the House a request for consideration of the inclusion of Wonthaggi as a site for the new headspace youth mental health centres planned for expansion under the Budget of 2011. This is one of the fastest growing areas in Victoria and this rapid growth coupled with lack of social outlets for young people has created problems such as social isolation, depression and drug dependency. However services in the Shire to assist youth remain extremely limited. These young people and the community are suffering. We ask that the House do all in its power to assist us in having our town nominated for inclusion in the new round of centres to be place in rural communities.
from 9,461 citizens
Taxation
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of the people of the NORTH WESTERN Region of Victoria,draws to the attention of the House: That the cost of living has risen dramatically for PENSIONERS, especially in the area of Water, Electricity, Gas, Council Rates, House, and Car Insurance, and Car Registration.
We therefore, ask the House to: Consider exempting the GST from the above items for Pensioners.
from 1,045 citizens
Marriage
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
We the undersigned members, families and friends of the Marriage Enrichment Movement (MEM) Brisbane draw to the attention of the House this petition to signify our strong opposition to the legalisation of same sex marriage in Australia for the following reasons:
We recognise the proponents have the right to live as they choose but they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us;
We believe that marriage between a man and a woman should be exclusive, unconditional, permanent and life giving. It is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage would be detrimental to the very fabric of society;
We believe that one of the main reasons our culture begun to crumble is due to the weakening of family values. Legalising another form of "family" would only make the situation worse;
We believe that legalising same sex marriage provides and creates a chain reaction that will eventually destroy the sanctity of marriage, a very alarming scenario;
Australia has a population of 22.6 million comprised of 64% Christians of which the majority are Catholics who affirm that a man and a woman is united and becomes one in the holy sacrament of matrimony.
We therefore ask the House to consider and support this petition against the legalisation of same sex marriage.
from 150 citizens
Marriage
To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:
the failure of the Commonwealth Marriage Act (1961) to allow marriages to be solemnised between partners of the same sex;
the failure of the Marriage Act to recognise same-sex marriages solemnised in other countries;
the great harm this does to same-sex partners and their families by discriminating against them, entrenching a second-class legal status, and perpetuating prejudice and stigma;
the great harm this does to marriage by associating it with discrimination; and,
the fact that an increasing number of other countries allow same-sex marriage, and most Australians support it.
We therefore ask the House to:
amend the Commonwealth Marriage Act so that marriages may be solemnised, and overseas marriage recognised, regardless of the sex of the partners concerned.
from 238 citizens
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Environment
Dear Mr Murphy
I refer to your letter of 25 August 2011, concerning the submission of a petition regarding the sustainable management and development of Australian farmland.
As you may be aware, many of the issues raised by the petition are currently the subject of litigation in the matter Spencer v Commonwealth and New South Wales (ACD24/2007). As a result, it is not appropriate for me to comment on these issues, except to state the following.
Over the past 20 years, governments and landholders have taken major steps across Australia to achieve more sustainable land management. This has included reducing land clearing in order to achieve biodiversity conservation, soil protection, water quality and salinity benefits.
Management of native vegetation is primarily a state and territory responsibility and is generally outside the scope of the Australian Government's direct responsibility. Nevertheless, the government does play a significant role in working cooperatively with the states and territories to develop national policies as well for matters which lie within its own jurisdiction, including Australia's obligations under international law, exports, imports and quarantine, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
In relation to the EPBC Act, the government would only intervene on specific development matters that will, or are likely to, have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance.
The government has worked cooperatively with the states and territories on environmental matters in developing national-level policies. Such policies that affect the management of native vegetation include the 1999 National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation and Australia's Biodivers ity Conservation Strategy 2010- 2030. Adoption of these policies is voluntary; they explicitly do not involve coercive appropriation of any private property rights.
The government contributes to implementation of national environmental and sustainable resource management through grant and associated progr ams. Prime amongst these is the $2 billion Caring for our Country initiative focused on the sustainable management of natural resources. Caring for our Country supports land managers to protect Australia's natural environment and to produce food and fibre sustainably through incentive payments, market-based instruments and extension activities.
It is delivered in partnership with regional Natural Resource Management groups, local, state and territory governments, Indigenous groups, industry bodies, land managers, farmers. Landcare groups and communities. Participation in this program is voluntary and depends on the willing participation of private landholders and others.
With respect to water legislation, this petition principally concerns the nature of the statutory rights granted under State and Territory legislation. However, the Water Act 2007 (Cth) strengthens the rights of Murray-Darling Basin water entitlement holders by guaranteeing compensation in certain circumstances.
Similarly, with respect to mining legislation, onshore mining operations are primarily regulated under the respective State or Territory government legislation. The relevant State or Territory government is responsible for making decisions in relation to the licensing of mining and extractive industries and therefore are responsible for managing issues in relation to land access, the loss of productive farmland and adverse health impacts associated with production.
Commonwealth responsibilities in relation to the approval of mining projects and other development proposals are primarily concerned with the protection of matters of National Environmental Significance defined under the EPBC Act. In addition, section 255AA of the Water Act 2007 (Cth) requires that, prior to licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling Basin system inflows, an independent expert study must be undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and ground water flows and water quality.
Thank you for writing on this matter and for bringing the petition to my attention.
from the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Tony Burke
Page Electorate: Gas Pipeline
Dear Mr Murphy
I refer to your letter of 15 September 2011 to the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, advising of a petition opposing the Casino-Ipswich Pipeline presented by the Member for Page, Ms Janelle Saffin MP. Your letter has been referred to me as Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
On 29 November 2007, the Casino-Ipswich Pipeline (EPBC 2007/3877) was referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) by Metgasco Limited and on 20 December 2007, the proposal was determined to be a "controlled action". As such, the proposal requires assessment and a decision on approval under the EPBC Act if it is to proceed. On 14 May 2008, finalised guidelines for the preparation of the assessment were issued. For the process to continue Metgasco must finalise assessment documentation, consistent with those guidelines and the company would subsequently be required to publish a draft of that documentation for public comment. Metgasco has not yet finalised that documentation. All relevant milestones and documents relating to the proposal will be published on the website of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities at: www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=cunent_referral_detail&proposal_id=3877
The project requires assessment under the EPBC Act because of its likely impacts on listed threatened species and communities protected under the EPBC Act. The petition refers to impacts on the Gondwana Rainforests World Heritage area. In making the decision that the project is a controlled action, my delegate considered the potential impacts of the proposal on National and World Heritage values. However, it was determined that those impacts were not likely to be significant, primarily because the proposed pipeline route follows existing roads. The pipeline would be buried, except for service points, and installed using conventional trench and backfill techniques
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention. I note that Ms Saffin has also raised this matter with me directly, in writing and in person.
from the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Tony Burke
National School Chaplaincy Program
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2011, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning a petition from a group of citizens regarding the National School Chaplaincy Program.
The National School Chaplaincy Program is one of many successful initiatives that have been effective in supporting schools to provide for the wellbeing of school students. It is important to note that the Program is voluntary at both a school and individual student level and that school communities have supported successful funding applications following broad school community consultation. The purpose of the Program is to enhance students' overall wellbeing, not to impose any religious beliefs or persuade an individual toward a particular set of religious beliefs.
The 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians states, 'Schools play a vital role in promoting the intellectual, physical, social, emotional, moral, spiritual and aesthetic development and wellbeing of young Australians and in ensuring the nation's ongoing economic prosperity and social cohesion. Schools share this responsibility with students, parents, carers, families, the community, business and other education and training providers.'
In supporting these goals, the Australian Government announced in November 2009, that all schools already participating in the National School Chaplaincy Program would receive further funding at maintained rates, to allow services to continue to the end of 2011. The Government confirmed in the recent 2011-2012 Federal Budget, further funding of $222 million for the National School Chaplaincy Program. This will support up to an additional 1000 schools from 2012 and enable all eligible schools currently funded under the Program to be extended to 2014. The additional 1000 places include schools in disadvantaged, rural and remote communities.
In line with the budget announcement, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has finalised the review which commenced in 2009, that considered how the Program can best support schools and their communities in the future. The public consultation phase of this review closed on 18 March 2011 with more than 7000 responses from schools, stakeholders and the broader community.
After consideration of the review, I announced changes to the Program on 7 September 2011. The Program will be strengthened with the introduction of minimum qualifications, benchmark standards for service providers and improvements to the complaints management system and school communities will be able to choose to employ either a chaplain or secular student welfare worker. These changes, along with the re-naming of the scheme to the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program, will commence in 2012.
Further information on the National School Chaplaincy Program is available on the Program website at www.deewr.qov.au/schoolchaplaincy. Alternatively, my media release can be viewed at www.deewr . gov.au/ministers/garrett/media/releases/pages/article_1 10907_102159. aspx.
Thank you for brin g ing these citizens' concerns to my attention.
from the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett
Sri Lanka
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 29 August 2011 regarding the petition relating to the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Panel on Sri Lanka, the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and Australia's development assistance to Sri Lanka.
The view of the Australian Government is that Sri Lanka needs to address the issue of accountability as a crucial part of dialogue and reconciliation. I, along with my predecessor the Hon Stephen Smith MP, have consistently called on the Sri Lankan Government, having won the war, to now "win the peace".
The Australian Government regards the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Panel report as a substantive contribution. All allegations of human rights and humanitarian law violations assessed as credible by the report need to be tested and, if they are proven accurate, action needs to be taken. The Government continues to urge Sri Lanka to respond to the report's findings through the work of the LLRC. It is in Sri Lanka's interest that the LLRC report be substantive, credible and consistent with international standards. Australia and the international community will closely scrutinise the report before deciding on whether any other form of inquiry is warranted.
Australia's long term goal is to assist Sri Lanka to become a stable and economically resilient nation. Our aid program in Sri Lanka focuses on the rehabilitation of conflict affected areas in the North and East, including through demining, resettlement of displaced persons and infrastructure reconstruction. Australia's development assistance program for 2011-12 is forecast at $43.5 million.
Thank you for bringing the concerns of the petitioners to my attention. I trust that this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd
Syria
Dear Mr Murphy
I refer to your letter of 19 September 2011 regarding a petition submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions opposing calls for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to appear before the International Criminal Court.
While I note the petition, the Australian Government, along with the international community, remains deeply concerned about the actions of the Syrian regime. The Syrian regime has not made genuine efforts to implement reforms, despite repeated commitments to do so.
The recent finding of the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission to Syria, that there is evidence of "human rights violations … which may amount to crimes against humanity", underlines the seriousness of the situation. The report details a consistent pattern of violence against unarmed protestors. It reports accounts of summary executions, including of injured protestors seeking medical treatment; indiscriminate firing on civilians (including children) by security forces; and the use of tanks, heavy machine guns and helicopters in urban areas.
Australia has urged the international community to intensify its pressure on Damascus to respond to the voices of the Syrian people demanding their legitimate freedoms. Australia supports stronger Security Council action, including referral of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court, as stated in my letter to the President of the UN Security Council in June.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd
Child Soldiers
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2011, regarding a petition recently submitted by the students and community of the King's Preparatory School in Parramatta about the plight of child soldiers.
Like the petitioners, I believe the exploitation of children in conflict, especially their use as child soldiers, to be unconscionable and abhorrent. The Australian Government takes every opportunity to condemn these practices, especially at the United Nations.
At the 18th session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) held in Geneva in September this year, Australia condemned the use of child soldiers as 'unacceptable' and spoke in support of the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. Australia also expressed its 'grave concern' over continued reports of the use of child soldiers in Somalia. Earlier in 2011, Australia co-sponsored resolutions on the rights of the child at the 16th session of the HRC in March and at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly in October.
The Government works to promote and protect children's rights through a range of international institutions and instruments. Australia has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention), and its two Optional Protocols, as well as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. These treaties have benefited children by establishing standards against which international behaviour can be measured and scrutinised. Australia continues actively to encourage all States to uphold. children's rights, as well as to ratify ILO Convention 182 and its Optional Protocols.
Aside from our diplomatic efforts, Australia's aid program also supports organisations like UNICEF prevent child soldier recruitment and rehabilitate former child soldiers. For example, in Sri Lanka we support UNICEF's work to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers and assist children affected by the conflict.
In Nepal we have supported Save the Children's work to release and rehabilitate former child soldiers. From 2010-13 we will provide a further S1.2 million to help the return and reintegration of children associated with armed forces or armed groups.
In the Philippines the Australian aid program is supporting UNICEF to help children in conflict-affected communities in Mindanao have access to immunisation, education and protection against recruitment into armed groups.
We will continue to look for opportunities to counter the use of child soldiers around the world. I thank the students and community of the King's Preparatory School for their concern over this pressing international challenge.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd
Child Care
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 12 October 2011 concerning a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding funding for Take a Break Occasional Care services.
In recognition of the critical importance of affordable, quality early education to Australian families, the Australian Government has undertaken a significant reform agenda to ensure families now have access to more financial assistance with child care, and more choice, than ever before.
The Government has significantly increased funding to early childhood education and care. Overall we will provide $20 billion over the next four years to give Australian kids the best start in life. This is well more than double the funding provided in the last four years of the former Howard Government.
As part of this investment, the Government is driving a national reform process that will see areas that were previously funded solely by State and Territory Governments receiving significant additional investment from the Commonwealth.
The Australian Government has ceased funding for Neighbourhood Model Occasional Care, which represented an investment of $1.1 million in Victoria in 2009-2010. Although now forgoing this, the Victorian Government is receiving approximately $210.6 million for kindergartens over the next five years — an area where the Commonwealth previously had no funding responsibility.
In Victoria alone the Australian Government is also providing record levels of funding for early childhood education and care, including:
$399 million through the Child Care Benefit;
$291 million through the Child Care Rebate to pay up to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket costs for families;
$21.3 million for the Child Care Services Support Program to help new services start or to support services that are struggling, particularly in regional areas;
$16.65 million for Children and Family Centres; and
$17.4 million for 11 new Early Learning and Care Centres.
On 25 October 2011 I also announced additional Occasional and In Home Care places for Australian families. The allocation of places represents a rise in support for Australian Government funded Occasional Care places in Victoria of 44 per cent. It is expected that around 250 Occasional Care places will be allocated within Victoria. All existing and prospective Occasional Care providers can apply for the places, including Take a Break services.
In recognition of this significant additional investment, I continue to urge the Victorian Government to maintain funding for the Take a Break program and follow the lead of other states like New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia who have all committed to supporting this type of child care.
I appreciate you bringing the petition to my attention.
from the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, Ms Ellis
Broken Hill: Aged Care
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2011 to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, regarding the petition 545/887 made to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the matter of aged care funding in Broken Hill. I am responding as the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing.
I have enclosed a formal response to the subject petition for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
I appreciate you bringing the contents of the petition to the Australian Government's attention and trust that the attached information assists the House in responding.
Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia, draws to the attention of the House the immediate urgency to rectify the dire situation in our hospital and nursing homes. There is an acute shortage of beds in the hospital and our aged care patients are being sent to Wilcannia— 200 kilometres from home, family and friends, to free up desperately needed hospital beds.
The Broken Hill population is 25% higher than the figures used to calculate current health and aged care funding for the city. The old hospital had 380 beds and the replacement has 80.
Broken Hill has given much to this nation and will do so again for the next 70-100 years according to recent announcements by Mayor Wincen Cuy.
We therefore ask the House to provide immediate extra aged care funding to enable our elderly citizens to remain in their home town and provide immediate funding to our hospital —increase beds and services appropriate to our population.
Response
The Australian Government aims to provide equitable access for Australia's ageing population through the annual planning, distribution and allocation of new aged care places, as set out in the Aged Care Act 1997.
Each year, new aged care places are made available for allocation in each state and territory, based on their population projections and the level and type of aged care currently being provided. The distribution of new places across aged care planning regions seeks to achieve a balance in the provision of services between metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas, as well as between people needing differing levels of care.
The Australian Government has increased the level of funding provided for aged care by more than 30% over the last three years. A total of $54.2 billion will be provided for aged care over the next four years from 2011-12.
The Australian Government recognises the need for fundamental reform of the aged care system in order to ensure that it continues to provide high quality care and can respond to the needs of Australia's ageing population in a way that is sustainable for the future. The Government is already implementing reforms to the aged care system through a range of initiatives under National Health Reform.
Under the National Health Reform Agreement, all Australian Governments have agreed to major reforms to the organisation, funding and delivery of health and aged care. These reforms are designed to provide better access to services, improved local accountability and transparency, greater responsiveness to local communities and financial sustainability for the health system into the future through increased Commonwealth funding.
The Government is guaranteeing to provide at least $16.4 billion in additional funding for public hospitals over the period 2014-15 to 2019-20. The Government is also investing up to $3.4 billion between 2010 and 2017 to address key pressure points in public hospitals. This will deliver improved services for patients, including more beds, quicker emergency department services and better access to elective surgery and subacute care.
On 7 October 2011, the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, and Senator for New South Wales, the Hon Ursula Stephens, announced the signing of a $7 million agreement to establish the Broken Hill GP Super Clinic. GP Super Clinics are designed to improve access to quality health care in communities and are a significant investment in taking pressure off public hospitals. It is expected that the Broken Hill GP Super Clinic will include general practice, nurses and allied health specialists with a strong emphasis on chronic disease management and lifestyle modification programs.
The Government has also asked the Productivity Commission to examine all aspects of Australia's aged care system, and to develop detailed options to ensure that Australia's aged care system can meet the challenges facing it in coming decades.
The Productivity Commission issued its Final Report, Caring for Older Australians, on 8 August 2011. The report includes proposals for extensive reform of Australia's aged care system and presents an integrated reform package. In formulating its response, the Government will be guided by four overarching principles.
Firstly, older Australians have earned the right to be able to access quality care and support that is appropriate to their needs, when they need it. Secondly, older Australians deserve greater choice and control over their care arrangements than the system currently gives them. Thirdly, funding arrangements for aged care must be sustainable and fair for both older Australians and for the broader community. Finally, older Australians deserve to receive quality care from an appropriately skilled workforce.
In developing its response to the Productivity Commission's report, the Government will be meeting with key stakeholders and has also started a national conversation with older Australians, their families and carers on the ageing reform agenda at forums across the country.
from the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler
National Bowel Cancer Screening Program
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 19 September 2011 providing me with a copy of the petition concerning full implementation of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (the Program) that was presented by you to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions on 19 September 2011.
The Gillard Government recognises that bowel cancer is a major health issue affecting many Australians and is committed, in partnership with state and territory governments, to developing a program which is accessible, comprehensive and ultimately reduces the incidence of the disease.
Early detection by screening remains the best way to fight bowel cancer. That is why in the 2011 Budget, the Australian Government announced funding of $138.7 million over four years to continue the Program as well as providing funding on an ongoing basis. This provides surety for the operation of the Program into the future.
Since the commencement of phase one of the Program in August 2006, over 3 million Australians have received a free bowel cancer screening test kit and over 1.2 million people have returned the test for analysis. Over 2,000 people who returned a test kit have been diagnosed with suspected or confirmed bowel cancer and at least 3,000 people were diagnosed with earlier stage adenomas.
As the terms of the petition correctly state, current evidence from the National Health and Medical Research Council's Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer recommends that organised screening commence for average risk people at 50 years of age. Over the next four years, approximately 3.7 million people turning 50, 55 and 65 years of age between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014 will be offered free bowel cancer screening under the continuation of this Program. However, the Program needs to be phased in gradually to ensure that health services, such as colonoscopy and treatment services, are able to meet any increased demand.
The Government will consider further whether to expand the Program once fiscal circumstances permit.
I appreciate your interest in the Program and trust that the above information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon
Medicare: Bone Densitometry
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 31 October 2011 regarding the petition for Medicare funding for bone densitometry for Australian women at menopause.
As you may know, currently Medicare benefits are payable for bone densitometry for:
the diagnosis and monitoring of bone loss if a patient has certain specific medical conditions or is undergoing particular treatments likely to cause rapid bone loss;
the confirmation of clinically suspected low bone mineral density, usually following a fracture;
the monitoring of established low bone mineral density; and
those patients over the age of 70 years.
It is the Australian Government's aim that services listed in the Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS), including bone densitometry, should reflect and encourage appropriate medical practice based on the best available evidence.
For any medical service to be reimbursed through the MBS, the Government requires that it first be assessed and found to be safe, effective and to provide value-for-money, both for patients and tax payers. In deciding what medical services to support through Medicare, the Government relies on the expert advice of the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC).
An application has been made to MSAC for bone densitometry for menopausal women over the age of 50 years and it is progressing through the MSAC process. New tests are assessed by expert committees composed of consumer representatives, health economists, health administrators, clinical experts in pathology, surgery, specialist medicine and general practice as well as health technology assessment professionals. Information on MSAC processes and the contact details for MSAC can be obtained on its website at www.msac.gov.au
I assure you that decisions to cover services under Medicare and the conditions attached to those services are based on thorough and well considered processes that aim to provide quality and accessible health services for all Australians.
I trust that the above information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon
Medicare Centre in Narellan
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 3 November 2011 to the Hon Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, about the petition received by the Standing Committee on Petitions requesting a Medicare office in the Narellan business district. Your letter was referred to me as the Medicare program is in my portfolio.
I appreciate the petition you have forwarded on behalf of residents from the electorate of Macarthur and I note their desire for closer access to Medicare face-to-face services. While the Government has no plans to extend the office network for the Department of Human Services at this time, my Department will continue to monitor demand for Centrelink and Medicare services at all locations around Australia, including in areas of high growth such as Narellan and the surrounding suburbs.
To accommodate the service needs of communities where there are no shopfronts for the Department of Human Services, the Government is investing in a variety of alternative programs to make it easier for Australians and their families to access Centrelink and Medicare services from the comfort and privacy of their own home.
For the Medicare program, a telephone service is now available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the cost of a local call on 13 20 11. Customers speak directly to a person who can help them to lodge a claim, where the rebate is paid directly into the customer's bank account, or with any other Medicare business.
Customers can also claim their Medicare rebate directly at their doctor's practice, if the practice offers electronic claiming. This service is quick, easy and secure, and the Medicare rebate can be paid directly into the customer's bank account. I would encourage residents of the Macarthur electorate to ask their doctor about providing this service.
While I recognise that online claiming does not suit every customer's needs, Medicare benefits for some medical visits can also be claimed over the Internet 24 hours a day, seven days a week through the website www.humanservices.gov.au .
Once again, thank you for writing.
from the Minister for Human Services, Ms Plibersek
Supply of PBS Medicines
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 2 November 2011 to the then Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, regarding a petition submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions about amendments to the National Health Act 1953 to prohibit exclusive supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines to community pharmacies. I am responding as the Minister for Health.
All distribution arrangements for PBS medicines are being closely monitored by the Australian Government to ensure that the objectives of the PBS continue to be met.
To this end, the Department of Health and Ageing has met with the key stakeholders to discuss direct and exclusive supply arrangements, but has not yet received any independent evidence that these arrangements have caused systemic diminished access to PBS medicines for consumers.
The purpose of the PBS is to provide reliable, timely and affordable access to a wide range of medicines for all Australians. The cost of the PBS represents a large portion of the health budget, and in the 2010-11 financial year, the PBS cost the Government approximately $9 billion. The Government currently subsidises over 3,950 medicines through the PBS, making it one of the most accessible and affordable medicine subsidy schemes in the world.
The Government recognises the role pharmaceutical wholesalers play in the supply chain for PBS medicines and provides remuneration through both the Community Service Obligation (CSO) Funding Pool and the wholesale mark-up on PBS medicines.
Introduced under the Fourth Community Pharmacy Agreement, the primary objective of the CSO Funding Pool is to ensure that arrangements are in place to provide all Australians with ongoing and timely access to PBS medicines via their community pharmacy.
These arrangements support pharmaceutical wholesalers supplying PBS medicines to community pharmacies across Australia, regardless of pharmacy location and the relative cost of supply.
Additional stability for wholesalers has been provided through the retention of the CSO Funding Pool under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. Pharmaceutical wholesaler remuneration has increased under the CSO from $663.4 million under the Fourth Agreement to nearly $950 million over five years of the Fifth Agreement. The wholesaler mark-up remains unchanged (from the Fourth Agreement) at 7.52 per cent of the medicine's price for most drugs, and $69.94 for drugs costing more than $930.06.
Although the CSO Funding Pool provides eligible wholesalers with financial support in recognition of the additional costs incurred in providing PBS medicines to all community pharmacies, participation in these arrangements is voluntary. The Government cannot compel wholesalers to take part in the arrangements nor require PBS manufacturers to use the distribution services provided under the CSO arrangements.
Exclusive supply is not a new concept in Australia with many pharmacies benefiting from these arrangements over a number of years. Decisions by a manufacturer to distribute its PBS medicines under exclusive supply arrangements is a commercial decision outside the responsibility of Government, but the Government remains absolutely committed to ensuring timely access of all PBS medicines to all Australians.
My Department would welcome stakeholders providing any information that direct and exclusive supply arrangements are causing patient health impacts through delayed access, either directly or through the Pharmacy Guild of Australia.
Once again, thank you for writing.
from the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek
Headspace Centre for Knox
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 23 August 2011 regarding a petition seeking funding for a headspace centre for Knox, in outer eastern Melbourne. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I note the petition was presented on 23 August 2011 and considered at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Petitions. Under Standing Order 209 (b), as the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter raised in the petition, I am responding within 90 days of its presentation.
I appreciate the level of community interest that has emerged about the successful headspace model and that many communities are keen to have a site established in their area. Access to effective and responsive mental health services is clearly important, and for this reason the Australian Government has made, and is continuing to make, substantial investments to improve mental health services, especially for young people.
The 2011-12 Budget allocated $197.3 million over five years, on top of a current commitment of $133.3 million to 2013-14, to expand existing and establish new youth focused mental health services through the headspace program. Specifically, the 2011-12 Budget measure provides funding for 90 fully sustainable headspace sites across Australia by 2014-15. Once all 90 sites are fully established, headspace will help up to 72,000 young people each year.
On 24 October 2011, the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, announced 15 locations for establishment of new headspace sites, confirming Melbourne - Outer East (Ringwood/Knox) as one of the new locations.
The announcement of the 15 new locations, and two outpost services, will take the number of headspace sites around the country to 55, with an additional 35 locations to be announced by 2015. The new sites have been chosen in conjunction with headspace, and in consultation with state and territory governments, on the basis of community need, youth populations, access to existing services and local capacity.
In addition to the roll-out of further headspace sites, a telephone and web-based support service for young people building on the headspace platform has also recently begun providing services. This eheadspace service provides free, confidential and anonymous counselling services to young people between the ages of 12 and 25 years with, or at risk of developing, a mild to moderate mental illness. The service also provides referrals to other appropriate services, including mental health, alcohol and drug, social and vocational services.
This service is an alternative approach for young people to access support and help, and will use innovative online communication tools that many young people have indicated is a preferred way of communication and accessing support services. Further information on the eheadspace service is available at www.eheadspace.org.au
I would appreciate it if you could convey this information to the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
I trust that the above information is of use.
from the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2011 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions in relation to people in immigration detention.
The Australian Government is committed to treating asylum seekers and refugees humanely and fairly while maintaining its commitment to managing risks to the Australian community. Immigration detention of all unauthorised arrivals is mandatory for the purposes of determining any health, identity or security risk presented by unauthorised people arriving at the border. This is in contrast to those who arrive in Australia lawfully and have been assessed during the visa application process in relation to matters such as identity, security, bona fides and health.
The Government is conscious of the need to ensure people are not held in immigration detention for long periods, however, time is required to determine whether a person meets the criteria for grant of a visa. The processing delays can be due to a number of factors including the volume of cases, difficulty in satisfactorily determining a client's identity, complexity of claims, developments in country information and, for those who have been found to be a refugee, finalisation of other immigration related criteria such as the security clearance process.
On 18 October 2010, the Prime Minister and I announced that the Government would move the majority of children, and a significant number of vulnerable families, into community detention (formally known as Residence Determination) by the end of June this year.
The Government has delivered on its commitment. As at 23 September 2011, I have approved 1981 clients (1077 adults and 904 children) for community-based detention arrangements. Of these, 1060 clients (616 adults and 444 children) are residing in community detention arrangements. Around 800 clients have left the program after being granted protection visas. Consistent with the Government's announcement, priority is being given to unaccompanied minors and vulnerable families. My Department is also continuing to place a small number of vulnerable single adult males.
Community-based detention arrangements were introduced in June 2005 and are a form of immigration detention that enables people to reside in the community without needing to be escorted. Community-based arrangements provide accommodation and care arrangements and access to socially inclusive activities, such as children attending their local school and parents participating in community activities. The Australian Red Cross is the lead agency implementing this program and their activities include linking people to a range of activities and volunteering opportunities.
As announced by the Prime Minister and I last month, as part of a new approach to detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs), after initial health, security and identity checks, they may be eligible to be placed into the community on bridging visas while their protection claims are assessed.
Since this announcement, my Department has been working on a framework and implementation arrangements for IMAs in detention - both existing clients and new arrivals. The Department has also been consulting across government and with non-government service providers and stakeholders. As part of this, the department is continuing to assess the detention population for suitability for temporary visa grant. This will be an ongoing staged process to ensure an orderly transition to the community. The department will continue to use the community detention program and the support it offers for more vulnerable clients or those not suitable for grant of a bridging visa.
Minors in immigration detention are processed as a matter of priority to resolve their immigration status as quickly as possible. Minors and their families or unaccompanied minors found to be owed protection by Australia and are granted permanent protection visas are allowed to live permanently in Australia. Visa grant entitles them to the full range of Australian Government benefits and services.
I note the petitioners' request that Australia increase the number of people it resettles under the Humanitarian Program.
Australia is proud of its record of resettling refugees from around the world. The first refugees arrived in Australia just after the Second World War. Since then, more than 750 000 refugees have found a new home in Australia. Australia is one of the top three countries who have helped refugees in this way.
The size of Australia's Humanitarian Program has increased twice in recent years, increasing by 500 in 2008-09 and 250 places in 2009-10. The Program is managed flexibly which allows it to respond to changing global situations and emerging humanitarian needs. As only a small number of refugees are able to be offered a chance to settle in Australia each year, every effort is made to help those in greatest need.
The success of the Humanitarian Program is not only measured by how many humanitarian entrants are resettled, but also to what extent refugees are able to rebuild their lives and contribute to the Australian community. The Government is committed to ensuring that people settling in Australia have the help they need to rebuild their lives and become fully functioning members of the community.
Settlement services are an important part of Australia's commitment to providing a path and a means for new arrivals to achieve full participation in, and adjustment to, their new society. Such services are critical, particularly early on in the settlement journey, and the Government is always seeking new and better ways to help people settle as quickly as possible.
I welcome hearing from communities about their views on the Humanitarian Program as part of the Government's annual consultations. The consultation process usually takes place towards the end of the year and further details about how groups and individuals can take part and put forward their views will be available on the Department's website at www.immi.gov.au at that time.
I trust the information provided is helpful.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 24 August 2011 relating to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the Australian Government's Arrangement with Malaysia to counter people smuggling (the Arrangement).
I write to update you on developments following my response to you on 11 October 2011 about a previous petition regarding the Arrangement.
As noted in that letter, the Arrangement represents the first concrete bilateral agreement of the type contemplated by the landmark Regional Co-operation Framework agreed to by ministers at the Bali Process meeting in March.
The Arrangement also presents a significant opportunity to improve the lives of more refugees, while dealing with irregular migration and people smuggling activity in the region.
As I noted previously, the protections and the increased resettlement opportunities contained in the Arrangement reflects genuine progress in advancing humanitarian responses in the region and increasing the available protection space. It also removes the incentive for people to attempt the dangerous boat journey to Australia by boat, which cannot be advocated by anyone who favours a genuinely humanitarian approach.
Following the decision of the High Court on 31 August, the Government introduced legislation into the Parliament to restore the power of the executive to enter into arrangements such as the one with Malaysia.
As the petitioners would be aware, however, the Opposition has indicated its intention to block this legislation, resulting in the need to process all asylum seekers onshore.
Consequently, I recently announced a new approach to the management of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia, by boat. Following an initial period of mandatory
detention period for health, security and identity checks, eligible individuals who are assessed as not posing a risk to the community will be progressively considered for community placement while their refugee claims are assessed. Asylum seekers on bridging visas will have the right to work and support themselves and have access to necessary health services.
Further, a single protection visa process for both boat and air arrivals, using the current onshore arrangements for application and independent review through the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) system will be implemented during 2012. This process will introduce a single, consistent and efficient process that will continue to afford all people using the system access to judicial review.
The Government remains committed to the Malaysia Arrangement and will move to implement it immediately, should the Opposition indicate that it is willing to pass the legislation necessary to allow for offshore processing.
Thank you again for your referral of this petition. I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen
Live Animal Exports
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 19 September 2011 enclosing a petition submitted for the consideration of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions about opposition to the suspension of the live cattle export trade to Indonesia. I regret the delay in responding.
I understand the expectation that, as minister responsible for the matters raised in the petition, under standing order 209(b) I will lodge a written response with the petitions committee. Please accept the following as my response for consideration by the committee, presentation to the House, recording in Hansard and posting on the committee's website.
Anyone who watched the footage aired on the ABC's Four Corners program on 30 May 2011 would have been shocked by the treatment of the animals it showed.
It was clear from this footage that the live export industry cannot safeguard the animals it sells without strong government regulation.
The Australian Government had to act. To fix the problems raised in the footage, the government introduced a strict new framework for livestock exports to Indonesia that ensures animals will be treated in a way that meets or exceeds international animal welfare standards.
On 21 October 2011 the government announced that it would be extending this framework to all other markets for Australian feeder and slaughter livestock. The new framework will be phased in with 75 per cent of trade covered by the end of February 2012, 99 per cent by the end of August 2012 and all markets covered by the end of 2012. The decision was informed by an independent review of Australia's livestock export trade by Mr Bill Farmer AO, as well as reports from two industry—government working groups on live cattle, and live sheep and goat exports.
These changes fundamentally reform the way the live export trade works. Before, there were no rules to cover what happened after an animal arrived in an export market. Once the new framework is rolled out, the way Australian livestock are treated in all markets must meet or exceed international standards.
I thank you and the committee for your interest in this important issue. To read the Farmer review and industry--government working group reports as well as the government response to these reports, or for more information about government action on live exports, including details of assistance available for people affected by the suspension of trade to Indonesia, please go to www.liveexports.gov.au.
from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig
Live Animal Exports
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 31 October 2011 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions forwarding a petition about the cruelty of live animal exports.
I understand the expectation that, as the minister responsible for the matters raised in the petition, under standing order 209(b) I must lodge a written response with your committee. Please accept this letter as the response to be considered by the committee, as well as presented to the House, recorded in Hansard and posted on the committee's website.
Anyone who watched the footage aired on the ABC's Four Corners program on 30 May 2011 would have been shocked by the treatment of the animals it showed.
It was clear from this footage that the live export industry cannot safeguard the animals it sells without strong government regulation.
The Australian Government had to act. To fix problems raised in the footage, the government introduced a strict new framework for livestock exports to Indonesia that ensures animals will be treated in a way that meets or exceeds international animal welfare standards.
On 21 October 2011 the government announced that it would be extending this framework to all other markets for Australian feeder and slaughter livestock. The new framework will be phased in with 75 per cent of trade covered by the end of February 2012, 99 per cent by the end of August 2012 and all markets covered by the end of 2012. The decision was informed by an independent review of Australia's livestock export trade by Mr Bill Farmer AO, as well as reports from two industry—government working groups on live cattle, and live sheep and goat exports.
These changes fundamentally reform the way the live export trade works. Before, there were no rules to cover what happened after an animal arrived in an export market. Once the new framework is rolled out, the way Australian livestock are treated in all markets must meet or exceed international standards.
More information about government action on live exports is available at www.liveexports. gov.au.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention.
from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig
Live Animal Exports
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2011 enclosing a petition submitted for the consideration of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions about opposition to live animal export from Australia to the Middle East. I regret the delay in responding.
I understand the expectation that, as minister responsible for the matters raised in the petition, under standing order 209(b) I will lodge a written response with the petitions committee. Please accept the following as my response for consideration by the committee, presentation to the House, recording in Hansard and posting on the committee's website.
Anyone who watched the footage aired on the ABC's Four Corners program on 30 May 2011 would have been shocked by the treatment of the animals it showed.
It was clear from this footage that the live export industry cannot safeguard the animals it sells without strong government regulation.
The Australian Government had to act. To fix the problems raised in the footage, the government introduced a strict new framework for livestock exports to Indonesia that ensures animals will be treated in a way that meets or exceeds international animal welfare standards.
On 21 October 2011 the government announced that it would be extending this framework to all other markets for Australian feeder and slaughter livestock. The new framework will be phased in with 75 per cent of trade covered by the end of February 2012, 99 per cent by the end of August 2012 and all markets covered by the end of 2012. The decision was informed by an independent review of Australia's livestock export trade by Mr Bill Farmer AO, as well as reports from two industry—government working groups on live cattle, and live sheep and goat exports.
These changes fundamentally reform the way the live export trade works. Before, there were no rules to cover what happened after an animal arrived in an export market. Once the new framework is rolled out, the way Australian livestock are treated in all markets must meet or exceed international standards.
I thank you and the committee for your interest in this important issue. To read the Farmer review and industry—government working group reports as well as the government response to these reports, or for more information about government action on live exports, including details of assistance available for people affected by the suspension of trade to Indonesia, please go to www.liveexports.gov.au.
from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig
Marriage
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 31 October 2011 regarding the petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions, opposing changes to the Marriage Act 1961.
The Australian Government believes that the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act 1961 ' that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life ' —is appropriate.
The Government believes that couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life should be able to have their relationships recognised. The Government supports a nationally consistent framework for relationship recognition to be implemented by the States and Territories. New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have established relationship recognition schemes, where the relationship is legally recognised by the act of registration. Relationships registered under these schemes are also now recognised in a wide range of Commonwealth laws. The Government will continue to encourage other jurisdictions to develop such schemes.
I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee when considering this petition.
from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland
Marriage
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 31 October 2011 regarding the petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions, opposing changes to the Marriage Act 1961.
The Australian Government believes that the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act 1961 ' that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life ' —is appropriate.
The Government believes that couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life should be able to have their relationships recognised. The Government supports a nationally consistent framework for relationship recognition to be implemented by the States and Territories. New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have established relationship recognition schemes, where the relationship is legally recognised by the act of registration. Relationships registered under these schemes are also now recognised in a wide range of Commonwealth laws. The Government will continue to encourage other jurisdictions to develop such schemes.
I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee when considering this petition.
from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland
Carbon Pricing
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 13 October 2011, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning a petition from a group of citizens on the proposed carbon price and its effects on jobs.
The Australian Government is committed to a broad sustainability agenda. In the decades ahead, the Australian economy will continue to grow if we can embrace the opportunities arising from the transition to a clean energy, low carbon and resource efficient economy.
On 10 July 2011 the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP announced Securing a Clean Energy Future: The Australian Government's Climate Change Plan. Central to this plan is the introduction of a carbon price that will cut pollution in the cheapest and most effective manner, drive investment in new clean energy sources and enable a shift to more sustainable business practices. The Securing a Clean Energy Future plan also includes measures to promote innovation and investment in renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency and create opportunities in the land sector to cut pollution. Importantly, under the plan the Government will invest more than $11 billion in carefully designed measures to support jobs and competitiveness as Australia moves to a clean energy future.
I am pleased to note that the 18 bills constituting the Securing a Clean Energy Future legislative package passed through the House of Representatives on 12 October 2011 and through the Senate on 8 November 2011.
Putting a price on carbon is likely to affect different industries in different ways, but Treasury modelling indicates that the aggregate number of jobs in Australia will continue to grow strongly while at the same time the growth of Australia's carbon pollution is expected to slow considerably. The shift to a clean energy, low carbon economy will provide new job opportunities for Australians, particularly in new or fast growing clean industries such as renewable energy, ecotourism, carbon farming and sustainable design. New opportunities will also emerge in existing industries as enterprises move to implement new business practices to increase their efficiency and competitiveness.
The Government recognises the importance of continued jobs growth and the necessary investment in skills and workforce development to achieve this aim. As part of the Securing a Clean Energy Future plan, the Prime Minister announced the Clean Energy and Other Skills Package on 12 July 2011. Through this package, up to $32 million over 4 years will be invested to enable tradespeople and professionals in key industries to develop the skills needed to deliver clean energy services, products and advice to Australian communities and businesses. The package is being implemented by my Department.
As the Australian economy continues this transition towards green growth, skills for sustainability will be increasingly important across the entire workforce. Workers with sustainability skills will have the capacity to increase energy efficiency, reduce waste, conserve water and develop and implement sustainable technologies and practices.
My Department has a central role in promoting the uptake of these skills across the economy through embedding skills for sustainability principles and practices throughout the National Training System. To help build the capacity of the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector to provide skills for sustainability, the Council of Australian Governments endorsed a national Green Skills Agreement to ensure that practical sustainability training is a fundamental part of all VET programs.
More information is available at www.deewr.gov.au/skillsforsustainability.
Through initiatives such as these the Government is ensuring that all Australians are able to participate and prosper in Australia's Clean Energy Future.
I trust the information provided is helpful.
from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans
Asbestos
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2011, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, regarding the petition you have received requesting that Australia take a leading role in the establishment of an international treaty to prevent the mining and exporting of asbestos. I apologise for the delay in responding.
The petition appears to deal principally with matters that fall under the portfolio responsibilities of the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. I note from your letter that you have forwarded a copy of the petition to Minister Rudd.
However, asbestos exacts a terrible human toll in Australia and the Australian Government is committed to doing everything it can to ensure that asbestos management arrangements in Australia minimise the risk of avoidable exposure. That is why on 29 October 2010 I announced the establishment of the Asbestos Management Review. The review will assess current activities in the area of asbestos management and research and make recommendations for the development of a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness and management.
I also note from your correspondence that the petition requests that business ethics be taught in Australian schools and universities. As this matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, you may wish to forward a copy of the petition to his Office for appropriate action.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans
Road Infrastructure
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for letter dated 13 October 2011 about the petition regarding federal funding for the F3 to Sydney Orbital design works.
The Australian Government made available $150 million to the NSW Government for planning activities for the F3 to Sydney Orbital Link project. This funding was provided on the basis that NSW provide a 20% contribution to the project. Within the period from the commencement of the Nation Building Program in July 2008 to the May 2011 Federal Budget, no commitment was made by the NSW Government to this project.
I understand that NSW is currently re-evaluating its infrastructure priorities through the development of a 20-year state infrastructure strategy, which assesses the needs of NSW in terms of infrastructure. The NSW Government is being assisted in this process by the newly established Infrastructure NSW.
Last year the Australian Government tasked Infrastructure Australia to undertake work to investigate private financing options for the F3 to Sydney Orbital and the M5 East extension. The outcome of its examination of options will help guide future decisions around this project.
Thank you for raising this matter.
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese
Member for Fisher: Travel Expenditure
Dear Mr Murphy
Re: Petition regarding entitlement usage.
Thank you for your letter of 19 September 2011 regarding a petition considered recently by the Standing Committee on Petitions seeking an audit, with oversight by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), of entitlement use by the Member for Fisher. The petition required that he specify the parliamentary or electorate business that he was undertaking on each occasion in the past decade that he accessed his parliamentary entitlements. The petition also sought a tightening of the parliamentary entitlements framework to require Senators and Members to provide detail of the parliamentary or electorate business associated with each use of their entitlements.
To begin with, I can inform your Committee that there is no statutory or other basis for me to request any such action on the part of any individual Member or Senator to specify the precise nature of the Parliamentary or electorate business undertaken over the past decade. You would be aware that, since August 2003, all Members or Senators are required to personally certify that the use of entitlements is for those prescribed purposes. I also draw the attention of the Committee to the enhancements of accountability and transparency mechanisms which have been added to the Parliamentarian's entitlements system, as set out below, since 2007.
Key features of the Government's actions in this area are greater transparency and accountability, including an expanded range of parliamentarians' entitlement use tabled bi-annually in Parliament covering all parliamentary entitlements administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance). Previously, only the travel expenditure of Senators, Members and former parliamentarians was tabled; this represented less than 10 per cent of the value of all entitlements use. Tabling reports now include the cost of travel, printing, postage, telecommunications, stationery, office fit outs and furniture, office administration costs as well as all family travel expenditure.
In addition to tabling all entitlement use, the Government has introduced the six-monthly reporting of parliamentary entitlement expenditure on Finance's internet site. This has dramatically improved the availability of information to the media and the general public, which has enhanced the debate on entitlement use. Details of parliamentary entitlements expenditure since July 2008 are available on Finance's internet site at www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/index.html. I note that the petitioners' reference to the Member for Fisher's specific use of entitlements is directly linked to information available as a consequence of the Government's policy of greater transparency and accountability.
In November 2008, the first ever annual report on staff employed by Senators and Members under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) Act) was presented by the then Special Minister of State. This report, which has now been produced three times, presents details of staffing numbers, salary ranges, payroll, travel and support costs as well as non-salary benefits and details of professional development, other training and occupational health and safety of all MOP(S) Act employees. The three MOP(S) Act annual reports are also available online on Finance's internet site.
The new disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) which were established by this Government and took effect from 11 May 2011 ensure that all material released under the FOI Act that relates to parliamentary entitlements is also made public on Finance's internet site. Finance also proactively published certain material that was released under the FOI Act prior to 11 May 2011, including information on parliamentary entitlements.
In the interests of transparency, the Senators and Members' Entitlements handbook and other documents relating to the framework of parliamentary entitlements are also published by Finance on its intran et site at www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentary-services/documents-relating-to-parliamentary-entitlements-legislation.html.
Although Senators and Members remain responsible for their use of entitlements, Finance monitors expenditure under capped parliamentary entitlements to help ensure that Senators and Members do not exceed their entitlement budgets. This is yet another tool to ensure that usage is within entitlement.
In circumstances where there is an allegation of misuse of an entitlement, there is an established protocol for considering such matters which was first put in place by then Special Minister of State Minchin in 1998. Under the protocol followed by Finance when it is alleged that a Senator or Member has misused an entitlement, Finance makes inquiries to confirm that the entitlement was used in accordance with its purpose. In the event of a more serious allegation or high incidence of transgression (or further investigation would involve interviewing members of the public) the matter is referred to a high-level departmental committee. In considering the allegation, the high-level committee may seek the advice of the Secretary, Attorney-General's Department, as to whether the matter warrants referral to the Australian Federal Police for any further action.
The ANAO conducts regular audits into Finance's administration of parliamentary entitlements, most recently in 2009-10, 2003-04 and 2001-02. Consistent with their purpose, these audits provided the Parliament with an independent assessment of the administration of parliamentary entitlements. Although the ANAO has powers to initiate audits in addition to its regular audit plan, it has not historically conducted audits of individual parliamentarians' use of entitlements.
To ensure that Finance is appropriately administering parliamentary entitlements and to help maintain an appropriate level of accountability, Finance has adopted a number of the recommendations from the ANAO's recent audits. In addition to the audits conducted by the ANAO, Finance also undertakes regular internal audits to help ensure that Parliamentarians' use of entitlements is consistent with the legislative framework.
These mechanisms are reinforced by Senators and Members' regular certification that their use of entitlements is in accordance with the purpose for which they are provided, generally for parliamentary or electorate business. A new element of the latest tabling of entitlement expenditure on the Finance internet is the inclusion of a record of Senators and Members' certification of their entitlement use. Backed by the Criminal Code Act 1995 which applies to false or misleading declarations, I consider that the checks and balances that exist in the system of parliamentary entitlements provide an appropriate level of accountability, a level which is consistent with the level of trust placed in Senators and Members by the Australian people in electing them as their parliamentary representatives.
However, it is recognised that there is scope for improvement in the parliamentary entitlements framework, which is why this Government commissioned a review of the entitlements system in April 2009. The recommendations of this review are currently under consideration by the Remuneration Tribunal, and I look forward to receiving its advice in due course. The Government is also currently undertaking a full-scale review of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act and associated regulations, with the aim of simplifying them and making them easier for politicians and administrators to understand and comply with, with a firm legislative base for the accountability and transparency mechanisms referred to above.
Thank you for seeking my views on this matter. You may wish to consider drawing the issues surrounding parliamentarians' use of entitlements that are raised in this petition to the attention of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges in the context of their development of a draft code of conduct for Senators, and to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in relation to their recently tabled Report on the same matter.
from the Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity, Mr Gray
Importation of Primates
Dear Mr Murphy
The former Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator the Hon Kim Carr, acknowledges your letter of 24 November 2011 concerning a petition regarding the request for an immediate ban on the importation of primates for research purposes.
As this matter lies within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, I have forwarded your correspondence to the Hon Tony Burke MP for consideration.
from the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr
Carbon Pricing
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 13 October 2011 alerting me to the petition regarding opposition to the carbon tax submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
Scientists advise that the world is warming and high levels of carbon pollution risk environmental and economic damage. No responsible government can ignore this advice. The Government is committed to acting on climate change because it wants to leave a better Australia for future generations.
The Clean Energy Legislative Package was passed by the Senate on 8 November 2011. It sets out the legislative framework through which Australia will introduce a carbon price to reduce our carbon pollution and move to a clean energy future.
A carbon price is not a tax on households — around 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia will be required to pay for their pollution, and every dollar raised will be used to support households, jobs, and to invest in clean energy and climate change programs.
Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognised by economists from around the world and respected institutions such as the OECD, the IMF and the Productivity Commission.
Currently, releasing carbon pollution is free despite the fact that it is harming our environment.
A carbon price changes this. It puts a price on the carbon pollution that Australia's largest polluters produce. This creates a powerful incentive for businesses to cut their pollution by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating.
I understand the concerns the petition has raised about the implementation of carbon pricing and the impact this will have on the cost of living. While carbon pricing will result in changes in the prices of a wide range of household goods and services, the overall increase in the cost of living for the average Australian family is expected to be modest. Treasury analysis predicts the introduction of carbon pricing will increase the consumer price index by 0.7 per cent in 2012-13 — that is less than a cent for every dollar spent. To assist households with price impacts, there will be tax cuts and increases in pensions, allowances and benefits. Nine in ten households will receive financial assistance to help deal with this. Almost six million Australian households will receive assistance that meets or exceeds their expected average additional costs.
Recent analysis by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), an independent research centre with considerable expertise in this sort of modelling, supported the conclusions of the Treasury analysis. Indeed, it suggested the price impacts are likely to be somewhat smaller and the compensation slightly higher than the Treasury estimates.
The Government is also committed to supporting jobs and competitiveness as we make the transition to a clean energy economy. The Jobs and Competitiveness Program will provide around $9 billion worth of assistance over the first three years of the carbon price to support industries and protect jobs, and will continue to support businesses on an ongoing basis. In addition, around $1 billion
will be provided for manufacturers to invest in energy efficiency projects and low-emissions technologies, processes and products and help reduce the carbon costs faced by manufacturers.
These measures will help ensure that Australia continues to experience strong jobs growth while at the same time providing incentives to cut pollution in our economy. By acting now, Australians can look forward to long term prosperity while protecting our environment for ourselves and for our future generations.
Importantly, the Australian economy will continue to grow strongly at the same time as we cut pollution to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change. By 2020 national employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs. Under carbon pricing average incomes measured by gross national income (GNI) per person increase by around $9,000 from today's level to 2020 and by more than $30,000 to 2050.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
from the Treasurer, Mr Swan
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Mr Murphy
Petition regarding ABC lawn bowls
Thank you for your letter dated 24 November 2011 concerning the petition on the reinstatement free-to-air broadcasts of lawn bowls on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The petitioners' request is noted and I acknowledge that the ABC's decision to cease broadcasting lawn bowls has caused considerable disappointment in the bowls community.
While I appreciate the concerns of the petitioners, it is important to note that the Australian Government provides an overall level of funding to the ABC, but has no power to direct the ABC in relation to programming matters. Parliament has guaranteed this independence to ensure that what is broadcast is free of political interference. Internal ABC programming decisions are the responsibility of the ABC Board and Executive. The petitioners may wish to contact the ABC directly in regards to their request for the immediate reinstatement of lawn bowls on the ABC.
As you may be aware, the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee has completed an inquiry into "Recent ABC programming decisions", which included ABC's coverage of lawn bowls. The committee released its report on 13 October 2011 and the government will provide a response to the report in due course. A copy of the report can be found at www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm
In the ABC's response to Questions on Notice from the public hearing conducted as part of this inquiry, it explained that its decision to cease bowls coverage was editorial. It explained that bowls has been on the ABC for many years, and audience numbers have declined markedly in this time. In 2009, average five city audience numbers were 200,674, while the most recent audience figures for 2011 are 168,000. The ABC noted that Senator the Hon Mark Arbib, Minister for Sport has raised this matter with them, and their discussion into the potential for future coverage of lawn bowls on ABC television is ongoing. I am advised that this is still the case. A copy of the ABC's response to Questions on Notice can be found at www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/abc/submissions.htm
Thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention.
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy
Child Care
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letters of 15 December 2011 regarding petitions requesting the House to delay the implementation of the National Quality Reform Agenda on long-day childcare. Reference numbers 594/983, 597/986, 596/985, 595/984 and 592/978 refer.
I have noted the petition and appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention. The implementation of the National Quality Reform Agenda on long-day childcare falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Employment Participation and the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare, the Hon Kate MP. I note you have forwarded these petitions to Minister Ellis. Please be assured that Minister Ellis is best placed to address this issue.
from the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin
Better Start for Children with Disability Program
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 24 November 2011 on behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions about the Better Start for Children with Disability (Better Start) initiative petition presented by the Member for Adelaide, the Hon Kate Ellis MP, on 24 November 2011 and signed by 2,261 citizens.
On 28 July 2010, the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, announced new funding to improve access to early intervention therapies for eligible children with disabilities that affect their development.
Under the Better Start initiative, Down Syndrome, cerebral palsy, Fragile X Syndrome and moderate or greater vision or hearing impairments, including deafblindness, are the identified disabilities.
The Australian Government recognises there are other conditions that may benefit from early intervention. I asked the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to seek expert advice about evidence for early intervention in relation to other types of childhood disability and developmental delay, including an analysis of current research. On 20 December 2011 I released a review of evidence for the effectiveness of early intervention for children with a range of developmental disabilities. The review, which was undertaken by KPMG, can be accessed at: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/pubs/ policy/early intervention review/Pages/default.as x. Along with the planned evaluation of the Better Start initiative, this will help inform the future direction of the program, including consideration of extending it more broadly.
The Better Start initiative is not intended to replace or reduce specialised disability support services that are provided in each jurisdiction. State and territory governments are the main providers of disability services in their respective jurisdictions and provide access to a wide range of services for children with disability and their families and carers. We have made good progress in the early design and development of a National Disability Insurance Scheme since the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, released the Productivity Commission's final report into care and support for people with disability on 10 August 2011.
All governments have agreed to lay the foundations for a National Disability Insurance Scheme by mid-2013 — a year ahead of the timetable set out by the Productivity Commission.
On 3 December 2011, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a dedicated agency to guide the development of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. This agency will lead the detailed design work for the launch of a scheme and will develop the practical plan for how we deliver this significant reform. This will be supported with an additional $10 million for projects to examine how the design elements of a scheme will work in practice.
The Government is committed to delivering a National Disability Insurance Scheme, and to making sure that people with disability, their families, carers, advocates and those who provide services are at the centre of this reform. For more information, visit the NDIS website at www.ndis.gov.au .
Thank you again for writing on behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions.
from the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Senator McLucas
PETITIONS
Statements
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:06): Mr Speaker, I have just tabled, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, a large number of petitions and ministerial responses in the first chair’s announcement of 2012. Therefore, my comments will be brief. As a refresher for the start of the year, I will make some important points about petitioning and the opportunities for the public to learn about the process.
The House Petitions Committee holds a procedural role in ensuring that petitions which meet standing orders requirements are received, can be presented to the House and receive a ministerial response. Petitions are assessed for compliance with the rules of the House only—the personal views of committee members one way or another about the subject matter are not a factor in the assessment. Petitions which do not meet House standing orders cannot be tabled as petitions. So the committee encourages petitioners to ensure they understand the House’s requirements before they go to the effort of gathering signatures. This way they can have the full benefit of the petitions process of the House.
As well as the procedural role, the committee plays a role in educating the Australian public about the petitioning process—providing online and printed resources, and telephone, mail and email support through the committee’s secretariat, who do such a good job. So, on behalf of the committee, I encourage prospective petitioners to contact the secretariat about the formal aspects of petitioning before they begin work on what might be a non-compliant petition.
I should point out the Petitions Committee’s role is limited. This was highlighted for the committee at its roundtable hearings in Victoria last December. I will talk more about these hearings in the coming tabling statements, but at this stage I will thank those petitioners who came to meet us in a very constructive couple of meetings. In coming weeks I will expand on what the committee gleaned about the value of the petitioning process and what petitioners expect from it.
The Petitions Committee does not investigate details of petitions or make recommendations to the government about petition requests—nor does it advocate for petition outcomes. Rather, its role is to facilitate and communicate, acting as a bridge between the House and the government and petitioners, and educating Australians about this aspect of the House of Representatives.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Private Members' Motions
Reference to Main Committee
The SPEAKER (10:09): In accordance with standing order 41(g) and the determinations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of three motions for which notice has been given by the member for Lyne and copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Fowler, Melbourne, Banks, Kingston and Shortland. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
COMMITTEES
Gambling Reform Committee
Report
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:09): On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I present the committee's report entitled Second report: interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising; and Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011, incorporating additional comments, together with evidence received by the committee.
Online gambling is the fastest growing form of gambling in Australia. In fact Australians spend around $790 million each year playing overseas online casino-type games and around the same amount on sports betting in Australia, increasingly in the online format. Those involved are not your typical poker machine player or racetrack goer but rather younger people, particularly younger men.
The primary legislation covering online gambling in Australia is the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. The committee examined this legislation and found that it had been very effective in banning the provision of Australian based interactive gambling services to Australians. Consequently we agreed that the act should be retained and recommended a strengthening of its ban on certain advertising practices, such as 'practice' websites and offering inducements to gamble. However, committee members took different views on how to address the area where the IGA appears to be most deficient—that is, the ability of the IGA to limit or restrict Australians accessing overseas online gambling services.
Another key area covered by the committee's report was gambling advertising, particularly in association with sport. Gambling during sport has become normalised in Australia and the committee agreed there should be much stricter regulation in this area.
What was also evident during the inquiry was the significant community concern about the proliferation of advertising for sports betting services. Children in particular are being constantly bombarded with advertising for gambling during sporting programs and the committee heard alarming stories about children and young people now not talking about their team's form but instead talking about their team's odds.
Experts told the committee that the proliferation of advertising at sporting venues and during sporting broadcasts could be having an adverse impact on children who are vulnerable to such marketing—that it is contributing to what has been called the 'gamblification' of sport. In other words the abundance of gambling advertising during sport is normalising gambling for children.
While the committee welcomes the work already underway by government and industry to reduce and control the broadcasting of live odds, our report calls for a total ban on their promotion, underpinned by legislation. The committee has also recommended that the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 be amended to prohibit gambling advertising during times when children are likely to be watching, including all sporting broadcasts during those times.
The committee also examined the risk of match fixing and welcomes the current work underway through the Council of Australian Governments to develop the national policy on match fixing. We also looked at certain bet types such as 'in play' betting and exotic betting and recommended further research on the risks of such practices.
And finally the committee considered Senator Xenophon's Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011. While generally supportive of the intent of several proposals in the bill—for example, on advertising and match fixing—the committee formed the view that more work was required and the bill should not be passed in its present form.
The committee received a total of 78 submissions and heard from a wide variety of interested stakeholders during the inquiries. In response, 20 recommendations were made across three key areas: the provisions of the Commonwealth's Interactive Gambling Act, online sports betting and wagering services, and advertising for overseas and domestic online gambling sites.
These inquiries have been a valuable opportunity for the committee to learn about relatively new forms of gambling which are entering a period of rapid growth. This is timely because now is the time to learn the lessons from the liberalisation of other forms of gambling, such as poker machines, and to do all we can to reduce further harm.
I sincerely thank all those who submitted material and I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I want to also thank all committee members for their interest and participation in this inquiry and for their genuine spirit of cooperation. And in particular I want to thank the committee's secretariat staff—Ms Lyn Beverley, Ms Meg Banfield and Ms Katie Bird—who have done a very fine job over of a number of inquiries in sometimes difficult circumstances. I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:15): I commend the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform. He has often had to put up with trying circumstances, as I know the secretariat have. I second his commendation of their work. This inquiry into interactive and online gambling and gaming advertising was an important inquiry—it was all about bringing these issues, which have surreptitiously crept into our everyday lives, into this parliament for us to consider. We have noticed over the last 60 years or so the invasion of TV into homes—into living rooms, bedrooms and everywhere else in the modern household—but we are now seeing modern technologies spread themselves into our daily lives more and more. You only have to look at politicians and Twitter accounts and tablets and the like to know they are changing the nature of politics. Of course they are changing the nature of gambling, and that trend will accelerate. This parliament will have to be very aware of emerging technologies so we can legislate appropriately and not just chase the tail of the gambling monster, as it were.
The committee makes a number of important recommendations. The sooner recommendation No. 1, concerning the independent research institute, is implemented, the sooner the parliament will be in a much better position to assess the claims and counterclaims of proponents of reform and those who seek to avoid reform and avoid their increasing responsibilities as the providers of these services. Recommendation No. 9, which talks about a reduction in account verification from 21 days to 72 hours, protects children in particular and also generally the integrity of the industry. Recommendation No. 15 involves a total ban on the promotion of live odds at venues and during the broadcast of games. Much of the evidence given to the committee—and a lot of anecdotal evidence—is that people do not like going to the game and having gambling constantly shoved down their throats and therefore obviously down the throats of young people in attendance.
Recommendation No. 19 concerns prohibiting gambling advertising during children's viewing times. In this modern world we do not give children much time to have a childhood anymore. Kids grow up pretty fast and part of that process involves what they are exposed to on television. Over the last 15 years we have seen a liberalisation of standards and a willingness of broadcasters to push the envelope. Maybe that is because of competitive pressures and maybe it is because of self-regulation, but much of what children take in by watching TV is of concern to society, as it should be to this parliament. Recommendation No. 16 concerns a mandatory code of conduct for the advertising of wagering, including inducements to bet, credit betting, third-party commissions, harm minimisation messages on responsible gambling and having national consistent standards particularly in regard to logos on uniforms and the replication of guernseys, for example, for children which might have gambling logos on them. We want to have a mandatory code of conduct so that some of those more egregious things are taken out. This has inspired some government action, which is on the public record, and that is an important thing.
It is important that the committee continue its work. This is a very interesting area of public policy, a very contested area of public policy, but I think we have added to the knowledge of this parliament and to the knowledge in the community of some of the issues that the community has to face. I commend the chair once again for his excellent conduct.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Denison wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:20): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Report and Reference to Main Committee
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:20): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Electoral Matters Committee
Report
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:21): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report entitled Report on the funding of political parties and election campaigns, incorporating dissenting reports, together with the minutes of proceedings.
When Australia's funding and disclosure system was introduced in 1984 it was a leader in the field. However, more than a quarter of a century later, Australia's political financing arrangements are in need of review and revitalising. In a democracy like Australia, it is vital to have transparency and accountability as core features of our political financing arrangements, so we can all have confidence in our system. The Australian people have the right to know where their money is coming from and where it goes, so they can make informed decisions when selecting their representatives.
It is important that any changes made in Australia to funding and disclosure arrangements at the Commonwealth level are not merely a reaction to incidents or calls for reform but a considered and carefully designed approach to help ensure transparency and accountability.
It is important to safeguard the integrity of our funding and disclosure system, but it is also vital not to unduly restrict the ability of individuals and groups to engage in the political arena, whether through donating to a candidate, political party or third party, or advocating on a particular issue. Australians' rights to freedom of political expression and participation must also remain a high priority. In making the recommendations in this report, the committee has sought to strike an appropriate balance between these competing concerns.
The committee considered a cross-section of views during the course of this inquiry and developed what it believes is a measured approach, providing practical reforms to improve the current funding and disclosure system.
Key reforms include increasing the level and frequency of disclosure by reducing the disclosure threshold from the current $11,900 (indexed to CPI) to $1,000, without indexation. The reporting requirement for political parties, associated entities and third parties will initially move from annually to six-monthly reporting, with a view to moving to contemporaneous reporting following an investigation of options by the Australian Electoral Commission.
The committee also recommended the introduction of special reporting of single donations over $100,000, which must be disclosed to the AEC within 14 business days of receiving the donation and made publically available soon after on the AEC website.
The committee also supports clarifying the definition of 'gift' to include the receipt of money from fundraising events, to help improve the transparency of money received from attendees at these events.
To improve the overall transparency of the flow of money, the committee also proposes requiring greater disclosure of political expenditure. Currently, expenditure is disclosed as a block sum with no specific details.
These increased disclosure requirements will place additional administrative burdens on those with reporting obligations. To help address this, an additional stream of funding is proposed to assist Independents and political parties in meeting their increased obligations. While the provision of administrative funding does mean additional public money, the increased transparency will leave electors better armed with relevant information about the movement of money.
The committee has also made recommendations to enhance the administrative efficiency of disclosure arrangements, including the AEC enhancing its online lodgement system to assist those with reporting requirements for donations and expenditure.
The committee also proposed reforms to the public funding arrangements, including having a reimbursement scheme to operate alongside the per vote payment system. Eligible candidates and parties will then receive the lesser amount of the two options. This will help ensure that payments received are appropriate and do not provide a windfall to candidates. It was also recommended that winning a seat should serve as a threshold for entitlement to public funding in cases when the member or senator has not attained the four per cent threshold.
The committee also recognised that effective compliance arrangements are essential for a workable funding and disclosure scheme.
Australia's system of compliance and enforcement of its political financing arrangements are based on an ex post facto approach—punishing breaches or noncompliance after the fact. The penalties for offences against the funding and disclosure provisions are relatively weak and have not been updated since the scheme's introduction in 1984. All offences are criminal offences and so must be prosecuted by the Commonwealth DPP before a penalty can be imposed on those who breach the funding and disclosure requirements.
However, the successful prosecution of offences has proven difficult. This has been attributed to the relatively low penalties for some funding and disclosure offences, which, it been suggested, sends a message to the CDPP that these offences are not viewed as serious.
I thank the committee secretariat and members of the committee, in particular our technical adviser, Ms Christine Wickremasinghe. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (10:26): The report on the funding of political parties and election campaigns was a most contentious series of hearings and report. This is a very political report. The committee was split down the middle between the government and the Greens and the opposition, because this report is designed to benefit Labor, the Greens and their compatriots—the union mates and GetUp!.
In our dissenting report, we pointed out that the decision to lower the threshold for disclosure to $1,000 non-indexed was a requirement of the Greens in their alliance with the Labor Party to form government. It is designed to benefit both those parties, because it will penalise the coalition parties, who rely on small donations from individuals and small firms. Before the higher threshold was reached there was plenty of evidence around of the badgering of published donors who had donated to the coalition parties where both the Labor Party and the unions said, 'Where is our donation?'—or threats of another kind. We find this sort of thing is not conducive to and not compatible with participatory democracy, where it is important that individuals and firms, be they small or large, have both an obligation and a right to participate in having their point of view heard and may make a donation to their party of choice without expecting a penalty or to be abused by an opposing party.
The inquiry taught us some valuable lessons. It taught us particularly about GetUp!, which claims to be an independent body. We became aware that all the large donations it receives—for instance, $1 million from the CFMEU and other donations from ALP affiliates—mean that it is not entitled to call itself independent. Further, when I asked how many voting members it has, it claimed that it has 600,000 members. Yet, when you look at its constitution, the number of voting members by its own admission is less than 12. I also asked whether, if I clicked onto its website, I would be counted as a member, and its answer was yes.
On the question of the Greens and the donation of $1.6 million from Mr Graeme Wood, the founder of Wotif—and of course the purchaser, together with a partner, of the mill in Tasmania—we noted that disclosure of that $1.6 million had been 'put off', in the words of Mr Brett Constable, the Greens national manager, and that it was 'really out of respect for the donor'. We learnt that Mr Wood gave his reasons to the Financial Review on 30 July 2011 for his giving $1.6 million. He said:
I was a bit concerned that if the Coalition got in a lot of my investments in environmental causes would have been down the plughole. It will hopefully save me a whole lot of money in fighting other environmental wars or battles.
So much for the Greens and GetUp! saying they do not wish to peddle influence and they think it is wrong that donations to other parties would have a similar effect. The fact of the matter is that there was no evidence except that which I have read out that there is indeed an attempt to buy and peddle influence. The inquiry also showed the inconsistencies that exist with no willingness to attack the huge donations flowing from the trade union movement to the Labor Party and their friends. Trade union donations are a tax deduction and that makes available another pool of tax deductibility for union members, who can also donate a further $1,500 in addition to their union fees to the Labor Party cause.
The coalition is opposed to the thrust of this report where it benefits Labor and the Greens. There were some minor matters that were dealt with in the report to which we gave some support, but the overall thrust of the report is not full of integrity—a word that some like to use in association with these matters. Rather, it is one that is partisan. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:31): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Report and Reference to Main Committee
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:31): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011
Report from Committee
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (10:32): On behalf of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, entitled Inquiry into Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011, incorporating additional comments together with evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr RIPOLL: On 22 September last year the House referred the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services an inquiry into the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011. The committee's report was presented to the Speaker out of session on 2 December last year. As chair of that committee I am pleased now to be able to table the report here in the House. The bill furthers the government's commitment and good work, as well as the resolution of the Council of Australian Governments to introduce a national system of consumer credit regulation—something that has been due and waited for in this country for a very long time. COAG agreed that the new consumer credit system would address areas of concern with the operation of state and territory consumer credit laws and this bill does exactly that. It delivers on the commitment that Labor made to ensure that there was national, state and territorial consistency on consumer credit.
The bill proposes a new approach to the regulation of reverse mortgages, consumer leases and short-term lending, colloquially known as 'payday lending'. The bill also contains measures to assist borrowers to vary repayments under a credit contract in circumstances of financial hardship. In addition the bill introduces remedies for unfair and dishonest conduct on the part of creditors. The committee agrees that improvements are needed to address concerns with the regulation of these areas of consumer credit law and the government has worked hard to ensure that we have the best options put forward. The committee considers that the measures proposed further the objects of consumer protection and fully-informed market participation. However, in the course of the inquiry the committee identified areas where the operation of the proposed consumer credit laws could be further strengthened. To this end the committee has made 14 recommendations.
Much of the public debate regarding the bill has focused on the regulation of short-term loans in particular. It is to this matter that I draw the House's attention. The committee understands that the reforms are intended to balance consumer protection with the continued viability of the short-term lending sector, an industry which provides a valuable service to the community. The bill recognises that more can be done to protect consumers accessing short-term loans, but evidence presented to the committee was not conclusive that the measures proposed are the best means of securing necessary consumer protections while at the same time maintaining a viable short-term loan industry. The government has taken note of this and is working to ensure that we get the balance right between protecting consumers and making sure that an industry continues to survive. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the government undertake further consultation on the proposed regulation of short-term loans.
In conducting the inquiry, the committee received 53 submissions and it held one public hearing, during which the committee heard from 19 different organisations. I want to express my thanks for the good work of the committee secretariat and acknowledge the continuing hard work of all the committee members, and particularly the deputy chair, Senator Sue Boyce, and all of those who participated.
This inquiry was important because it did look at a particular area of consumer credit that is controversial. There no question about that. People have differing views across differing jurisdictions, particularly when we refer to payday lending. Generally, it would be accepted by most people that it has a bad name and there certainly are some players in that sector of the market that do the wrong thing. That is less and less becoming the case, and with better regulation we will find we have a properly regulated, properly managed and professional sector that can provide a service for a gap in the market for people who find themselves in need of a short-term, small-amount loan. If it is done properly, if it is regulated properly and if consumer protections are in place, then both can coexist: consumers can have access to a service and access to credit and they can be protected against unscrupulous operators, and we will still have a viable sector. That was the intent of the committee of inquiry and of the work of all the committee members. I commend the report to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (10:37): I am pleased to make some comments in relation to the presentation of the report on the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011. The issue of so-called payday lending is a complex one. The very use of the term 'payday lending' suggests unattractive images of people being forced to turn to a lender who charges very high rates and the people needing to do so to cope with their cash-flow difficulties, being unable to get from one payday to the next without having to turn to lenders who are putting them in a difficult position. But, like many complex issues, the reality is somewhat different from that assumption which can be made.
The committee heard extensive evidence from a range of interested parties, including members of the short-term lending industry who described their business methods and their charges. We also learnt about the regulatory approach imposed by the disastrous New South Wales Labor government in its dying days, including a notional cap on the amount of interest that may be charged by short-term lenders. In fact, the way the formula works tends to overlook the reality. If you have a loan of a relatively small nominal amount, a few hundred dollars, but flat administrative charges which need to be incurred—charges dealing with such matters as credit assessment and so on—the application of a formula can lead to the charges being presumed to exceed that formulaic limit. That is really because the formula is simply not appropriate to deal with the reality that there are certain costs which need to be incurred and those costs tend not to vary whether the amount which is being lent is a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars.
We also heard from groups such as many of the consumer credit legal services around Australia. The coalition wants to commend the important work done by the people in those services. It is important and difficult work. Nevertheless, the coalition members of the committee are in agreement with the conclusion of the majority report that some of the provisions in the bill as it currently stands would have an undesirably deleterious impact on the short-term lending industry. They would make it more difficult for loans of relatively small amounts for short terms to be provided than is possible today. That would leave Australians who rely on this sector with fewer options to meet their needs for short-term finance. The committee process has been a constructive one as to understanding in some detail the business practices of the short-term lending sector.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired.
COMMITTEES
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Report
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:41): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I rise to make a statement concerning the committee’s inquiry into the incidence and prevention of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. FASD is the umbrella term for a spectrum of permanent intellectual disorders that are caused when a foetus is exposed to alcohol in the womb. FASDs do not discriminate and are not just an issue for Indigenous communities with high alcohol consumption. FASD is a hidden epidemic happening right now across Australia—it occurs in all our communities, regardless of socioeconomic or ethnic background.
You may have seen some people with FASD who have the telltale facial features. But many more FASD sufferers carry no physical indication of their intellectual impairment, which includes learning difficulties, low IQ, behavioural and socialising problems, organ damage, mental health issues, poor judgment and an inability to understand consequences or the difference between right and wrong, which can cause problems for young people post puberty. Many of these children will end up in the child protection system, separated from family members and moved from foster home to foster home.
The committee heard moving evidence from a foster father of five children, all with FASD, in Cairns on 31 January of this year. All MPs should read the Hansard transcript to get an idea of how some very dedicated people are struggling to care for kids with FASD without any training, support or financial assistance. There are people with FASD in every electorate in Australia, and they and their carers all need support but are unable to access it.
This is because, unlike the United States and Canada, Australia does not formally recognise FASD as a disability. Australia also lacks a nationally agreed diagnostic tool, and medical professionals are not educated adequately on FASD diagnosis and referral. The prevalence of FASD in Australia has not been ascertained yet. More awareness of the effects of alcohol on unborn babies needs to be promoted in all our communities, especially among young women and those at risk of alcohol abuse.
The best hope for children with FASD is early intervention, followed by comprehensive support services to manage their health, education, housing and employment. Yet, without recognition of FASD as a prescribed disability, people with FASD and their carers are unable to access disability pensions and community care services. Australians with FASD desperately need access to services that improve their life outcomes. For these reasons, the committee’s inquiry into FASD is an important one that builds on the work that FASD sentinels—families, health workers, foster carers, teachers, and Indigenous communities—have done to bring to our nation’s attention this debilitating but preventable affliction.
The committee will investigate effective prevention strategies to reduce the incidence of FASD in future generations. We will look at early intervention therapies that work for those recently born with FASD and at suitable management services which assist them to avoid unemployment, ill health, homelessness and/or involvement with the criminal justice system later in life. The anticipated outcome of our inquiry is a commitment by this parliament to develop a national strategy for intervention and the prevention and management of FASD. This strategy should include a nationwide public health campaign, early adoption of an appropriate national diagnostic tool and recognition of FASD as a disability, thus allowing carers to access disability support benefits. We encourage anyone who has professional or personal experience with FASD to make a submission to our inquiry. Information about the inquiry is available at www.aph.gov.au/FASD. We urge people to make contact now. We need your input.
I look forward to contributions to this important inquiry, particularly from the member for Murray, who has been so passionate about this topic.
Dr STONE (Murray) (10:46): This is one of the most important inquiries we can run in our federal parliament, given that foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is the single largest and most commonly misdiagnosed cause of disability and, in particular, permanent intellectual impairment in the Australian community. At this point it attracts very little funding or support for those who have the condition or their carers. This inquiry is dealing with that need. I am sure it will be well received in a bipartisan way. One of the reasons I have helped to establish a parliamentary bipartisan group of like-minded members and senators is to help lift the cone of silence that has long paralysed Australia's recognition of and response to the damage that may occur to the brain and to other organs in the unborn where the mother consumes alcohol.
For the last 220 years, since the commencement of European settlement, Australia has glorified and elevated the status of the consumption of what we sometimes call grog or booze—beer, wine or spirits. Celebration of wins on our sporting fields and significant stages in people's lives such as births, weddings or funerals do not pass without raising a glass or drenching the victors in alcohol. It is part of our way of life. In our history we have had eras where rum was currency and we had a rum rebellion. That has made us colourful and macho, many think, and certainly we are not unique in the world in sanctioning heavy or regular drinking.
In the last 40 years, Australian women and girls have stepped up to join the men and boys at the bar. Girls can drink as hard and as long as the boys. This means our children now run an even greater risk of permanent and incurable brain damage should a pregnant mother consume alcohol at a critical time in development of the foetus or should she drink throughout her pregnancy.
The tragedy is that many Australian women are not being informed of the dangers and risks of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Every survey conducted in Australia of women's knowledge about alcohol consumption during pregnancy shows a shocking majority have not been informed. This echoes the fact, backed up by recent WA Department of Health survey data, that health service professionals are also ignorant of the relationship between alcohol consumption and intellectual impairment or they choose not to talk about the relationship in order not to alarm the mother. We have private hospitals boasting of the wine menu accompanying their meals in maternity wards—it is one of their selling points.
We lag behind other developed countries because we still do not mandate health warnings on alcohol containers, including warnings about the risks of consuming alcohol while pregnant. We lead the world in tobacco advertising and health warnings; we drag behind the world when it comes to highlighting the even more serious health impacts of alcohol consumption. This is why the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has sought and received ministerial support to conduct this inquiry into the incidence and prevention of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I commend the government for taking up this critical issue. I trust our final recommendations will be taken up and will help to make a real difference.
In the evidence we have taken so far, in Canberra, Cairns and Townsville, we have seen and heard about the lifelong and tragic consequences that are the result of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Carers, very often foster parents, have told of their desperate struggle to obtain support for their children or even an official diagnosis. We have also seen and heard about the champions who are Australian pioneers in researching this problem, in developing carer support networks, information and education courses, school supports and help for those caught up in the prison system. These champions are very thin on the ground. They are exhausted and many have very little emotional and physical energy left to continue. While countries like Canada and the USA have 40 years of support and diagnostic tools, therapy centres and clinics, some in Australia are still challenging the National Health and Medical Research Council's recommendation that no alcohol during pregnancy or breast feeding is the safest option.
This inquiry is extremely important. I want to thank the carer organisation NOFASARD for the use of their definition of FASD, which echoes the widely accepted international definition. FASD is an umbrella term which includes the abnormal facial features, growth delays, intellectual impairment, problems with learning, memory, attention and communication problems, vision or hearing impairments or damage to the skeleton or major organs of the body such as the heart and kidneys. Clearly this is a major problem which Australia must confront. I commend those already at work on this terrible problem.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.
BILLS
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:51): It is with great pride that I present the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the explanatory memorandum. Today is the eve of Valentine's Day—a big day for love in the Australian parliament. We have here the first equal marriage bill ever to be introduced in this chamber. Last year, I successfully moved a motion calling on parliamentarians to consult their community about their views on marriage equality. We did that so that it could be understood in this place that outside views have moved on and that people in Australia want to see equality in our marriage laws. At the time I said:
Love knows no boundaries. Love knows no limits. And love knows when it has found its partner. There have been many attempts through history to limit love. All have failed. As we move further into the 21st century, I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail again and that full marriage equality will become a reality.
Today we are moving closer to that reality. This is an historic day for this parliament and the country. It is an important step forward for human rights. Today is a good day for those who believe in the power of love and the power of love to change things for the better. This bill will amend the Marriage Act to provide equality for same-sex couples. The bill would remove discrimination under the Marriage Act so that marriage, while still a union between two consenting adults, is not defined by gender.
I want to be clear about what this bill does and does not do. This bill does apply to all marriages but it will also make clear that private religious organisations will not be required to marry anyone they do not wish to. This will mean that those churches or religious organisations that are not yet ready to change will be able to move towards change in their own time and in their own way.
The Greens have worked long and hard to get us to the point that we are at now on the road to marriage equality. In 2009 my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced a similar bill into the Senate and it was sent to a Senate inquiry. That inquiry smashed Senate records, receiving more than 25,000 submissions, more than any other Senate inquiry ever has. It was clear that there was enormous community interest in the issue. In early 2010, the bill was put to a vote and defeated, but Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens vowed to keep campaigning for full equality, and that is what we have done.
As the campaign in the community has grown, we have kept the issue on the parliamentary and political agenda. The issue was a central concern in my successful election campaign in Melbourne. I think I was perhaps the only lower house candidate in the country elected on a platform where the issue was so central. During the campaign and subsequently I have had strong feedback and almost universal support for the Greens' stance on marriage equality. I have received several thousand emails on the issue and over nine in 10 have expressed support for marriage equality. In a survey that I conducted in my electorate of Melbourne in November of the year before last, marriage equality was one of the top priority issues for respondents and, of the 475 people who responded to the survey, only one respondent expressed opposition to equal marriage rights.
One of my first actions in parliament was to move a motion on the issue, and Senator Hanson-Young reintroduced her bill into the Senate. It is now subject to a Senate inquiry. Over the last two years we have become part of a widespread and deeply felt community campaign across this country, and opinion polls show clearly that Australia is ready for change. I am confident that it will not be long before marriage equality is achieved, because love builds bridges where there are none. Love thaws hearts and warms minds. Love is a powerful force for good and a force for change. I believe that it is love that has brought us to this place in this debate and it is love that will carry us over the threshold of discrimination and fear to full marriage equality.
It is important to know that the push for equal love is not just important for those who want to get married. It sends a powerful message to the boy in the country town struggling with his sexuality or the girl at high school who wants to take her partner to the school formal. It makes it clear to them, to their parents and to everyone around them that this parliament, the highest law-making body in the country, believes that their love is equal.
I note that another member also intends to introduce a bill into the House today on this matter. I have been asked a number of times about why there is not just one bill on the issue. I want to be absolutely clear that I and the Greens would like to see one single bill proceed through this place on this issue co-sponsored by members across the political spectrum. In fact, when I announced last year that I intended to introduce this bill, I sought co-sponsorship. And so Mr Wilkie, the Independent member for Denison, and I are co-sponsoring this bill. The recent addition of people to this debate who have not been following it for some time is welcome because the way that we are going to get this bill through this parliament is by changing people's minds. What we cannot do is seek to have any one party own this issue because, with the government and Labor divided on the issue, we will need members of goodwill from the coalition benches to get this through. That is why, if we are to have a successful chance at reform this year, we must proceed softly and carefully and aim to work together with members from all sides of the House, from all backgrounds. The worst thing we could do is bowl this up for a vote to make a political point only to have it defeated. I am hopeful that through that cooperation, through co-sponsorship from members from all across the chamber, we will progress the issue and we will see reform this year.
I am also concerned that, if we bowl it up for a vote prematurely, we may end up with the situation which some media reports have suggested, and that is a vote that fails and then a renewed push for civil unions. Let us be absolutely clear about the status of civil unions. They would entrench two tiers of citizenship in this country. We need to push for full equality.
I know there are many in the coalition who believe that an individual should have the right to do what they like in their private life so long as it does not impinge on someone else. That classic definition of liberalism should lead members of the coalition to support this bill, and I know there are many who already in their hearts wish to support it. We need to allow the Senate inquiry to continue and we need to allay some of the fears that exist about this issue. By doing that, it is my hope that over the coming months we will get more and more people on board. Last week members of the Washington state legislature, Republicans and Democrats, did exactly what we need to do in this House. They worked together to overcome partisanship and party allegiance to pass a law for marriage equality. If they can do it, we can do it too. It is not just there: many countries around the world have taken this step. If Catholic Spain can allow two people of the same sex to marry each other then I am confident that modern, tolerant, democratic Australia can do the same.
There have been times throughout history when the civil rights of a group of people have been violated, often with legal sanction. Many of those struggles continue. The struggle to end discrimination and for full equality did not begin with marriage equality and it will not end when it is achieved, but it is an important turning point for that struggle.
Last year I referred in this place to the famous aphorism 'Love conquers all,' and I think we are showing the truth of that statement today. Love has brought us here and love will bring us through this impasse, because I believe the power of love will eventually bring this parliament into the 21st century, when we vote to make this bill law. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (11:01): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Marriage Amendment Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr SP Jones.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (11:01): Today I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples, and for related purposes. If enacted, this bill will permit a minister of religion, a person authorised under a state or territory law or a marriage celebrant authorised under the Marriage Act 1961 to perform a marriage between same-sex couples and will permit that marriage to be recognised in Australian law. But it will not require a minister of religion to solemnise a marriage where that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
I believe that God made us all equal but different—not differently equal. The object of the bill is to remove discrimination and advance equality. It will ensure that when same-sex couples make a voluntary commitment to be together for life, to the exclusion of all others, and they choose to have that relationship solemnised, it will be recognised at law in the same way that my marriage is.
While marriage is an old institution, it is not immutable. For example, it is now a voluntary union but it was not always so. Young women were betrothed against their will or with little say. Our concepts of marriage have changed in accordance with societal norms and they will continue to do so. This is reflected in the fact that the Commonwealth laws with regard to marriage have been amended by every single government since their inception, and there are many past aspects of marriage that we now look at with amusement, if not horror, including betrothal, dowry, a wife's vow of obedience, the prohibition on certain inter-race or religious marriages and the whole concept of conjugal rights.
In recognition that societal norms change, the Australian Labor Party changed its national platform on 3 December 2011 so that it now reads:
Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.
The platform was also amended to include the following:
These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage.
These amendments to our national platform were the result of many years of campaigning and work by activists from all sides of politics. Within the Labor Party, today I recognise the efforts of the many hundreds of members of Rainbow Labor.
We are not acting alone. This bill follows an international trend to end discrimination when it comes to marriage. Around the world there are now around 10 countries and even more places that allow same-sex marriages, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina and Mexico City. In the United States, nine states have changed their laws to permit the recognition of same-sex marriage, including Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Vermont, Washington DC, New Hampshire, Washington state and New York state.
Here, as in the rest of the world, the introduction of this legislation follows decades of community debate and changes in public opinion. Opinion polls in Australia show that a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill. Popular opinion is of course critical to this change. But I believe there is a stronger force which guides us in matters like this. It is the right to equality—the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality. Human rights are inalienable rights, recognised and protected by governments, not created by them. They should never be qualified by fear or prejudice.
The Australian Labor Party and this parliament have a proud history of enacting legislation to eliminate discrimination. In 1975 we established the Racial Discrimination Act, in 1984 the Sex Discrimination Act and in 1992 the Disability Discrimination Act. And, in its first term of office, the ALP amended 85 separate pieces of legislation to remove remnants of discrimination against same-sex couples. To the great credit of all members in this place, these changes were supported by the coalition parties as well.
The bill before the House today continues this project. It will end discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to have their relationship recognised by the state. In practical terms it will give same-sex couples the same rights and obligations in their marriage as I have in mine. But it also sends a powerful message that our belief in equality and a fair go is not limited by a person's sexuality.
Item 1 of schedule 1 of this bill will amend the definition of marriage that is currently in section 5 of the Marriage Act 1961 to read:
marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
The bill also amends subsection 46(1) of the Marriage Act to reflect this new definition of marriage.
Religion plays an important part in Australian life. We respect and celebrate our freedom of religion. This extends to the rights of churches to participate fully in public debate, including debate around this particular matter. In some countries churches do not have that right. Theocracies and dictatorships around the world have sought to suppress those voices of dissent, those voices which speak out in opposition to their particular creed. In Australia, the separation of church and state extends to the law of marriage. Yes, it is an institution of religious import, but it is also a civil institution. Our marriage laws are governed by civil law but recognise and respect the role of religious bodies to practice their faith in accordance with that faith.
For this reason the bill inserts a new subsection into section 47 of the act to reinforce the existing provisions that ensure that a minister of religion is under no obligation to solemnise a marriage where the parties to that marriage are of the same sex. This provision will ensure that the principles of religion and religious freedom are maintained when it comes to the laws of marriage in Australia. God made us all equal, but different—not differently equal. That is why I believe it is our duty as legislators to make this change and to do it with the support of all sides of this House and in the best traditions of this parliament. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (11:09): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Treaties Ratification Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Katter.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:09): I present the Treaties Ratification Bill 2012 to the House and in doing so I will proceed to recommend it to the House.
There are a number of agreements that have been signed internationally. With the World Trade Organisation agreement, all signatories to that convention agreed to remove the laws that stopped entry of product into a country, which was referred to as an embargo. We had an embargo on sugar in this country, as did Europe and America. We proceeded to remove—to 'tariffy'—all embargo laws. We moved to a $200 a tonne tariff protection to replace the embargo, and then it was decided, in the wisdom of the ALP and the Liberal-National Party government, to remove the subsidy, so it was subsequently phased out. The Australian sugar industry now competes against the American sugar industry. The last time I looked we were on $300 a tonne, America was on $660 a tonne and the Europeans were on $1,200 a tonne, indicating that they treated international conventions with absolute contempt.
President Bush and President Obama both said, almost word for word, that if a project contains one dollar of the American taxpayers' money then it will contain 100 per cent American steel. In the case of President Bush, with the aluminium agreement, he mentioned the words 'communities' and 'jobs' five times. Would that I heard someone in this House mention the word 'jobs' or the phrase 'survival of communities', except as a contemptible piece of hypocrisy. Here was a man breaching all of these conventions, flagrantly breaking them all because jobs, livelihoods and communities in America were at stake. His nemesis, the Democrats leader, President Obama, came in and said, with infinitely more aggression and determination than President Bush, exactly the same thing. Whether it is the aluminium agreement launched by the United States or a statement on steel made by the United States these people clearly regard conventions as something they would like to do, but in no way as binding.
In sharp contrast, this place inflicts upon the Australian people agreements that we the people have had no say in whatsoever. To those who say, 'We can't go back and get ratification through a referendum,' that is why we have members of parliament. They are here to represent the will of the people. The will of the people does not get any opportunity to participate in or approve these agreements, yet they are legally enforceable and binding within our country.
I pay tribute to the Electrical Trades Union, who are closely associated with our party, with four of our candidates in the forthcoming state elections are very active trade union members. They have certainly been backing us—Dean Mighell and Alan Jones were the two main speakers at our conference on the weekend. I thank them because what I am going to read out is very much coming from them. I also thank Rick Brown, who is a prominent adviser to a number of Liberal ministers in this place and who works very closely on these issues, which he feels very passionately about. I thank these people for some of the information and text that I am going to be reading out here. One reason that most Australians feel powerless and disenchanted with politics is that they think governments impose on them laws which affect their daily lives without consultation, let alone getting their prior approval. The way Australia enters into treaties is a good example of why a majority of Australians are entitled to feel the way they do. When it comes to having a say in the contents of a treaty, parliament is virtually presented with a fait accompli. It is true that there are disallowance provisions, but this process does not lead to genuine debate and occurs at the end of a process when there are only two choices: agree or disagree—no modification. There is also a committee on treaties, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, that not only gets involved when it is too late but is an example of shallow tokenism as the government of the day has a majority on the committee.
To enable the representatives of the people to have a genuine say in the formulation and approval of treaties is important for two reasons. Treaties ought to be treated like laws because they have a legally binding effect. They have a direct impact on people, especially when it is a serious impact such as costing people their jobs and costing children job opportunities. Treaties ought to be determined by the parliament after proper debate. This process enables public awareness of what is being proposed and a thorough analysis of the consequences of what is being proposed. Certainly, on occasions there is the odd discussion or consultation involving vested interest groups, usually the ones that are involved with the treaty that will benefit by it—usually overseas corporations. Public awareness of the public engagement process simply does not happen. Under current processes, unelected public servants have much more involvement in the determination of an outcome than the will of the people as expressed in this place. That is all we are asking for: that the will of the people has the last say.
Over the last few years Australia has signed free trade agreements with Singapore, Thailand and the USA. In each case governments have waxed lyrical about the benefits. Mark Vaile told us that the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement was worth billions of dollars and would create thousands of jobs. He said he would not sign the agreement unless the United States took our sugar, widened our beef and took out dairy products. He signed the agreement and, yes, there was a benefit for dairymen. The benefit was costed out as at one ice-cream a day. The cattle industry will not receive any benefit for eight years and there will be plenty of opportunity for that position to change. But we have always had a pretty good deal from the Americans on beef, so there is not much to be gained there anyway.
These were the only three things that the press mentioned. We have always had free trade arrangements with America, but the three areas in which we do not are these three areas. The benefit for the dairyman is an ice-cream a day, the benefit for beef men will come down in eight years time and, as for the sugar industry, going by Japan, there ain't going to be anything happening there—we will continue with our embargo.
What is the agreement about? As a result of this free trade agreement, apples will be coming in from America and sugar will still be banned from going into America. So we take the apples but they do not take the sugar. We can thank Mark Vaile and the National Party for that brilliant outcome. Again and again, all of the books on McEwen say he was a tough trader. If you went in there you could rest assured that Australia would come out on top, whether it was the agreement with the British people on wheat and later on beef and whether it was the beef agreement with Japan or access for our coal into Japan. In every single case they were up against a tough man. As for Mark Vaile, 'Mark unavailable for comment' was what the press used to say. He is a nice person and I would never denigrate him personally, but the outcomes he achieved for Australia were absolutely disastrous.
Let me be very specific in the last few minutes that I have available to me. Glivec was a wonder drug that you can only get for $55,000 a year. I had a person who said, 'I am going to die because I cannot afford to pay that.' The Pharmacy Board of Australia put up a terrific fight and were moderately successful. Their power to influence outcomes now has been removed completely, and our power with respect to things like bananas has been removed completely by an agreement which is very much against the public interest of Australia, and the China agreement will be worse still. (Time expired)
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (11:20): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.
Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Oakeshott.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:20): I present the Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 in an attempt to find a sustainable and best possible policy outcome that is acceptable to both the major parties—the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National party in this chamber—and the crossbenches so that Australia has a sustainable and workable response to the recent High Court ruling. The current policy impasse is unsustainable, and it lacks long-term direction for Australia.
This bill combines three considerations in an effort to reach a policy outcome. Firstly, there is the importance of the bipartisan Bali process and the regional cooperation framework. Some excellent work has been done in a bipartisan way that seems to have been forgotten, conveniently or otherwise, in the domestic debate. This is, I emphasise, bipartisan work on people smuggling, people trafficking and related transnational crime that began in 2002 and continues to engage over 50 countries, the International Office of Migration and the UNHCR. A mistake in the domestic debate today has been the lack of emphasis on this Bali process, and this private member's bill is an attempt to elevate the core principles, both border protection and humanitarian, that form the backbone of this regional agreement. Secondly, in forming this private member's bill, consideration is also given to the government's Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011, which was a response to the High Court decision of August 2011 in relation to declarations made under section 198A of the Migration Act and which has so far failed to pass the parliament. Thirdly, the final consideration in forming this bill is the amendments from the Liberal-National Party to the 2011 migration legislation amendment bill, including issues around engagement of the UNHCR in the negotiations which seem to have started, and then failed, over the summer recess.
I am very open to discussion of any of the issues raised. I am very open to any amendments where they would assist in achieving a response to the High Court decision and in allowing policy in Australia to consider a multi-locational strategy which includes both onshore and offshore considerations. It has been disappointing that in the domestic debate to date everything has been presented as either/or—either onshore or offshore, either Malaysia or Nauru—implying that the alternatives are either Labor or Liberal. There are other ways through. I would hope that the parliament looks for those through the conflict resolution that I am trying to present in this bill. I am open to negotiate on any of it. I would love the government or the opposition to pick it up as their bill as part of the negotiation—otherwise, I think we are failing as a parliament to seek best policy. I do not think that is what anyone in this place wants.
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (11:24): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:25): It is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill. I strongly suspect that the reason that we hear the term 'work/life balance' so much these days is because we have less balance between these two important dimensions of our existence than we should. The figures show that the average full-time working week in Australia is 44 hours—the longest in the developed Western world. Research shows that these sorts of working hours are impacting on our wellbeing, with poorer health and greater use of prescription medications. It is also affecting our personal and family lives. Sixty per cent of women say that they feel consistently time pressured and nearly half of men also feel this way. Almost half of all fathers in couple households work more than they would prefer, and one-third of women working full time would also prefer to work less, even taking into account the impact that this might have on their income.
On average, full-time employees would like to work about 5.6 hours less per week, while part-time workers would like to work around four hours less than they are currently working. In addition, we perform $72 billion of unpaid overtime each year as a country. It cuts the other way too. There are many people—though according to the studies a lesser number—who would like to work more hours than they are currently working but are unable to. A 2010 study on the health and working conditions of approximately 78,000 working Australians concluded:
… it may be counterproductive for employers to expect long working hours as employees are likely to take more time off and work less efficiently.
The study also commented that there is considerable evidence of an association between work demands and poor health. We have a situation where just over half of all Australians want to change their hours of work, even if this might impact on their income.
There is no doubt that many good employers already recognise the benefits of providing flexible working arrangements. However, this recognition is not as widespread as it could, or should, be. The Greens want people to have more control over their time and their working arrangements. We need a better match between the hours people want to work and the hours that they actually work.
I am pleased that the government has indicated that it wants to examine the desirability of extending flexible work entitlements. I note that the ACTU, prominent academics, Carers Victoria, government advisory bodies and many others have also advocated extending the right to request flexible working arrangements. The current legislated mechanism to request flexible working arrangements is only available to employees who have caring responsibilities for children under school age, or children under 18 with a disability. Employers can refuse on reasonable business grounds, but there are no mechanisms for appeal. The mechanism is well-intentioned but it is narrow and unenforceable. It can be strengthened. It should be strengthened. With the support of parliament for the passage of this bill, it will be strengthened.
The better work/life balance bill will extend the right to request flexible working arrangements to all employees unless there are reasonable business grounds for refusal. In addition, the right to request would be strengthened for those with caring responsibilities, with employers only able to say no where there are serious countervailing business reasons. In all instances, ongoing employees must have performed a minimum of 12 months service before the request can be made. If an employee's request for flexible working arrangements is refused, Fair Work Australia would be empowered to hear an appeal and, where appropriate, make flexible working arrangement orders. The bill also reflects my belief that, wherever possible, enterprise bargaining and enterprise agreements should be the best mechanism for providing better industrial outcomes. 'Flexible working arrangements' is inserted into the list of permitted matters that can be included in an agreement and I hope this will occur wherever a new agreement is being negotiated. Where an agreement does include such matters, they will take precedence. This is important because there may be some areas where, for example, it is not appropriate to have someone working for a very short period of hours. We do not want to end up with a situation where, for example, we have professional firefighters working two or three hours a week as that has the potential to undermine the important level of skills and training that are required to perform so many of these jobs. In such instances, one would expect to find in an enterprise agreement the appropriate way of dealing with questions of flexible working arrangements.
In relation to modern awards, a term will have no effect where it is less favourable than those determined by Fair Work Australia in a flexible working arrangements order. In addition, state and territory laws will be overridden if they are inconsistent or less beneficial than those provided for in this bill. All of that is subject to there being a provision in the enterprise agreement.
Allowing workers to have more control over their time will be a productivity bonus for the economy. Business will benefit from this reform, including employers who are already promoting flexible working arrangements so that employees can achieve a better work-life balance. Satisfied employees are likely to remain in a workplace longer, be healthier and be more productive. If people want to work different hours or work from home so that their life is better, then the law should allow it and society should encourage it, provided it does not unduly impact on their employer.
The bill recognises that carers play a special role in our society. Caring for those close to us must be a central concern for our society, and is important to the economy. People need greater control over their time, not just to look after kids but also, increasingly, to look after parents and grandkids, as well as foster children, people with disabilities, people with extended illnesses—the list goes on and on. For this reason, the bill defines carer simply as 'an employee who has responsibility for the care of another person'. In addition, as I have referred to, the bill raises the threshold test to 'serious countervailing business reasons' before employers can refuse a request for flexible working arrangements.
There are more women working more hours in paid employment but there is still the unpaid caring to do. With caring still done predominantly by women, there is a growing double burden on women and their families. If we are serious about supporting women returning to work after having had kids, we can and should do many things, not only expanding accessibility, quality and affordability of child care but also giving a legally enforceable right to flexible working arrangements.
As I have referred to, the provisions do not remove the capacity for managerial decisions to be made regarding working hours and working arrangements. If there are legitimate business reasons against a request, it can be declined.
The bill is not radical or unprecedented. A number of countries have various types of legislative mechanisms for people to request flexible working arrangements, and a serious countervailing business reasons test has been used in the Netherlands since 2000.
A review of flexible working arrangement laws in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK showed that a number of valuable lessons had been learned and a number of myths dispersed regarding the laws. There was a reasonable but manageable level of requests. The Netherlands had the highest level of requests, with 14 per cent of employees, while the UK had only 3½ per cent and Germany recorded less than one per cent. But, significantly, the majority of requests in each country were acceptable to employers. Costs were not a major problem with implementation and sometimes even resulted in savings. In addition, very few requests ended up in dispute. In the Netherlands and Germany, fewer than 30 requests per country resulted in court action in the first two years of the law.
The overseas experience suggests that being obliged to provide flexible work for employees may in fact help companies by ensuring that they examine alternative models that they may not have considered previously. An expanded right to request flexible working arrangements, as I have said, does not override management prerogative. It simply ensures full and proper consideration is given and provides an enforceable right and oversight from Fair Work Australia.
If this bill is passed, it will also will not undermine those very important industries and sectors, like firefighters—and there may be many others as well—where control over the working time is necessary to ensure that there is not industrial disputation between differing people working differing hours side by side in environments where harmony and consistency and equality of payments and arrangements are necessary.
A legislative approach will help drive positive cultural change in relation to flexible working arrangements by providing a clear framework and criteria for requests and, importantly, it will begin to remove the stigma of fathers and mothers—anyone who has to care for another person, anyone who wants to have more control over their life—requesting that change.
I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ) ( 11 : 35 ): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Same-Sex Relationships
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:35): I 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.
My support for marriage equality is well known. However, for me this issue is not simply to do with same-sex marriage. It is about equality that everyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual preference or faith, should be treated the same under Australian law: in other words, that all people are equal and should be treated as such. It is no wonder then I believe that the current provision of the Marriage Act, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is in fact legislated discrimination.
While at all times I have tried to be very clear in my position, hopefully I have also been just as careful to respect the strong views of the many people who disagree with me, because it is a fact that time and time again I have spoken to people I have disagreed with and time and time again people have disagreed with me. That is fair enough, because marriage equality is indeed a polarising issue, for all sorts of reasons. This motion is not about telling people who are against same-sex marriage that they are wrong. Rather, it is about acknowledging that people have many and varied views on this topic and that the Australian parliament should respect those views.
To that end, this parliament should formally recognise again that in Australia the churches are private institutions and that consequently they and their officials must forever retain their right to refuse to marry anyone whom they do not wish to marry. There is nothing remarkable about this proposition, if only because throughout history churches have had differing views on whom they allow to marry. For instance, some churches would not allow a Catholic to marry a Protestant. Others would not allow divorcees to marry again. Some would even refuse a ceremony to those of different creeds or nationalities. While some such refusals would seem out of place in our modern society, the right was protected and churches were not forced to adhere to one rule of eligibility. In other words, their status as a private institution was protected—and rightly so.
It is my firm belief that as a parliament it is not our place to impinge upon free religious practices and beliefs. But as a parliament it is our responsibility to make laws in the best interests of our country and, in the second decade of the 21st century, it is simply not acceptable that as a parliament we are prepared to restrict marriage rights from a section of the population based only on their sexual preference.
When the parliament does tackle this great reform, I do not wish it to be hindered by an argument that we might be seeking to force churches to solemnise marriages they do not agree with. Therefore I am pleased to present this motion to the House. It is my hope that it articulates widespread public sentiment and will help progress the move to marriage equality, a move which is supported by over 60 per cent of the community, according to today's Galaxy poll.
Some people might be concerned that this motion deals with a hypothetical. In response I say that marriage equality is patently inevitable, as it should be, so the public interest is best served by us in this place ensuring that the legislation enacting such reform is carefully crafted to respect the rights and sensitivities of those who oppose it. This motion is simply to that end and I suggest it would be counterproductive for those who oppose marriage equality to oppose this motion.
To the Leader of the Opposition in particular, I say: please respect your party's rule giving all parliamentary members the right to follow their conscience every time they vote in this place. Even if the opposition opposes this motion, there is no reason whatsoever why any number of its members cannot still follow their conscience and support it. This should also be the case when Liberal Party members eventually pass judgment on the bills coming before parliament this week which seek to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. I commend this motion to the House and strongly urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to lend it their support.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is there a seconder for this motion?
Mr Bandt: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr HAASE (Durack) (11:40): This private member's motion relating to the Marriage Act is interesting, to say the least, because it is not just a hypothetical, as the mover has suggested, but also a contradiction. It asks us as a parliament to consider, in changed legislation, a guarantee that such and such an act will not be enforced. We have legislation which describes the contract of marriage—it is between a man and a woman, entered into voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others, for life. By definition, that does not include the marriage of same-sex couples.
But we are being told that we need to move into the 21st century and get out there with other nations around the world which have changed their legislation. We have legislation. If our legislation is not sacrosanct—to be changed only if necessary for the betterment of good government—then what is the qualification of legislation? Why should we take any notice of any legislation if we can, at the whim of a minority group, seek to change it? There seems to me to be something dreadfully illogical about referring to the sanctity of legislation and then, at the drop of a hat, wanting to change it. It just does not make sense.
We are all embracing modernity today and GetUp! is considered to be one of the great modern institutions we should all be aware of the significance of. Yet they rate the importance of same-sex marriage and equality in marriage as 11th out of 12 issues. About 14 per cent of the population strongly support changing the Marriage Act while 18 per cent strongly oppose changing the Marriage Act. But what about that vast silent majority for whom this is not even on the radar? Why on earth must we rush headlong to change things simply for the sake of change?
I find it dreadfully offensive that we are, as though we were all Independents, supposed to rush around plumbing the depths of public opinion to find another point of minority interest so that we can drag that minority group under our clutches. It does not make sense for good, honest, upright members of this chamber to be dragged into such a debate simply because the government of the day wishes to embrace these minorities in order to maintain their support in votes in this House. It is not only a contradiction; it is an affront to good government. We do not need to rush around willy-nilly, heading in different directions and plucking at things to support, when there are so many shameful goings-on being driven by this government as policy today.
I deplore this whole process of embracing and accepting these motions in this place today—and they are numerous. We have the one from the member for Melbourne, another one from the member for Denison and a contribution from the member for Throsby. I do not quite know—maybe he is just formally condoning this relationship between minority groups and the government of the day. Maybe they wish to add this contradiction to their long list of failures. There seems little sense to this other than change for the sake of change—change perhaps to take the scrutiny, the public heat, away from the government's failed policy and their untruths. Maybe that is the basis of the government having all these bills brought to the House by Independents.
I do not believe that the population of this country want further nonsense from this government—they want a change of government. This would probably be one of the least important issues ever brought this House for the majority—and don't we aspire to govern for the majority? Don't we want good governance that will lead this nation forward to a brighter future, setting good, solid role models for the future of our children? This ought to be an honourable place and a place of permanence. It ought to have good legislation brought before it for good reasons. There is no good reason for the introduction of any of these bills and they ought to be voted down.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:45): This is the third time I have spoken publicly on same-sex marriage. In August 2011, I reported back to parliament on the views of my constituents for and against same-sex marriage. Within Labor Party forums I have also spoken out in favour of changing our party platform. But this is the first time I have spoken in parliament since the Labor Party changed its national platform. That platform now reads:
Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.
The Labor Party platform also states that on this issue 'any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party'.
I hope that over the coming months many members on both sides of this place will support a change to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is not about gay versus straight, conservative versus progressive, left versus right. It is about social justice, equality for individuals and the recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights. Throughout this great country, people watch Ellen DeGeneres and Erik van der Woodsen, Matt Lucas and John Barrowman, Jodie Foster and Stephen Fry; we listen to Elton John and KD Lang. Equality for same-sex couples is not unfamiliar to everyday Australians. Ce Ce of Hawker told me:
I have just heard you "come out" in support of marriage equality and I wanted to express my gratitude. My partner and I registered a civil partnership earlier this year—our society needs more civilisation—I still wait for the day that we might be married. There is something lacking in referring to my civil partner rather than to my wife. Please do not underestimate how much it means.
Warren and Grant of Aranda have been together for 27 years and believe marriage would be the ultimate legitimation of the equality of their relationship. As they told me:
Our marriage would not undermine heterosexual marriage—quite the opposite—our desire to be married reflects our deep respect for the institution of marriage.
Many of the opponents of same-sex marriage are devoutly religious. I respect their faith, but I say to them that it is possible to support marriage equality without undermining marriage, family or religion. Today, two-thirds of marriages in Australia are conducted by civil celebrants—a figure that is steadily rising. Same-sex marriage is supported by many religious leaders, including Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Reverend Bill Crews, Reverend Rowland Croucher, Reverend Matt Glover, Reverend Roger Munson and Father Dave Smith.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the parliament that there is nothing in same-sex marriage that should offend Liberals and conservatives. Libertarians are among the most prominent advocates of same-sex marriage and, as British Prime Minister David Cameron has said:
Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I do not support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
In 1967, my parents were married in New York. They celebrated their 45th wedding anniversary last Saturday. But if they had been of different races, there are 16 US states that would not have allowed them to get married in February 1967. It was not until June 1967 that the Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia outlawed bans on miscegenation. These bans were thought natural—and some argued that they were supported by scripture. That matters today because, in the words of Mildred Loving in 2007:
… not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.
In closing, let me quote the words of former Washington state representative Betty Sue Morris. Washington is shortly to become the seventh US state to permit gay marriage. Ms Morris spoke of a vote she cast against same-sex marriage in 1996. She said that in December 1998 her daughter, Annie, had come home for Christmas and told her she was gay. In the days that followed Ms Morris said she remembered her vote and 'felt like she had denied her something. A wholeness. A freedom.' Former representative Morris told Frank Bruni of the New York Times:
Whenever someone opposes this, I always counsel: you never know. You never know when it will be your child or your grandchild. And you will eat your words.
I hope members of the House will support legislation to put in place same-sex marriage.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:50): I rise to oppose this motion about amendments to the Marriage Act. A series of irrational and highly emotional arguments have been put forward on what is loosely termed same-sex marriage. I think that is a misnomer. Marriage is defined, in Australian law, as being between a man and a woman. That was set out in 2004 to clarify a situation that had been in existence in Australian law since 1961. This was done with the full support of the Labor Party, and this understanding has always existed in human history.
Today we have had this clash of Dead Poets Society with Pulp Fiction from the member for Melbourne, the member for Canberra and other members. They have tried to pretend there is unanimity of view that same-sex marriage is universal, supported and inevitable. It used to be death and taxes but now it is inevitable that there will be death, taxes and gay marriage. I do not think it is inevitable in our society. It has never been the case; it is a new and radical proposition. Instead of recognising that it is a new and radical proposition and coming to this place with an approach that is reasonable and measured and that brings the population along with it, the Greens and various Labor members, who are now free to express their views, are proposing something that is highly divisive and ignorant of the majority view around the world today.
We have heard that a procession of countries have enacted legislation in relation to gay marriage. In my research, I can only find 10 out of 200 countries that have enacted such legislation. We have heard about states in the United States, but let us be clear about this: in 30 out of 50 United States states where a referendum on this question has been held, the people said no. They said no in every single one of those 30 referendums where the question was put to the people. And that is the case in the more progressive California, which has been cited today in this place. The legislature there initially passed the laws granting same-sex marriage but then overturned them. In recent months, the French parliament rejected legislation for same-sex marriage. Indeed, in 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that its member states were not obliged to recognise same-sex marriage on human rights grounds. It is a misnomer to suggest that there is a human rights issue.
There is an issue here in this motion before the House. As a liberal, I believe in the freedom of individuals in society. Individuals are the building blocks of society. We are fundamentally built as a group of families—individuals structure themselves into families. I believe that people have the right to associate with whomever they want. I believe civil unions should be recognised at law. I am perfectly willing to consider legislation in relation to civil unions; perfectly willing to consider removing any remaining discrimination. However, I am advised that in federal law there are no such examples, or very limited examples, of any discrimination against same-sex relationships or same-sex couples.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about a radical proposal to undermine a fundamental social institution that has been the basis of our society for thousands of years, an institution between a man and a woman for the reproduction of children which has formed the basic unit of our society. Why can't we recognise civil unions in our society today? Why can't we recognise that they should develop their own traditions and their own customs because they are a new institution? Why don't we retain the successful institution of marriage, which has been the bedrock of our society for so long and done so well for us? We should retain it, encourage it and promote it, as we always have, and of course allow at law the same situation to exist for same-sex couples, which is inevitably what we do at the moment.
Many states now have relationship registers. These could be expanded and I would support that. It would be a step in the right direction. Of course we should clarify any situation where there is discrimination against people, but marriage has been a particular societal institution and convention that has produced so much good and will continue to produce so much good.
This is an attack on the rights of all those who support marriage, and I believe they are a majority. I believe that a majority of Australians voted in the 2004, 2007 and 2010 elections for the position of both major political parties that there be no amendment to the Marriage Act. If the Labor Party is now proposing to change its position, of course it must put it to the people—something we know that it does not like to do. On this side of the House, the coalition have always had the right to exercise our conscience. We should exercise our conscience, and conscience tells us that the majority of Australians today do not support amending the Marriage Act and do support removing any remaining discrimination against same-sex couples.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (11:56): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 14 February, 2012 being as follows:
(a) the House shall meet at 12 noon;
(b) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and;
(c) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Just briefly, there is agreement between the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers on this change, which we are making as early as possible for the convenience of not just members but parliamentary staff. It means that the House shall meet at 12 noon tomorrow rather than 2 pm. During that time there will not be votes; it will just allow for further contributions to the debates that are before the House. I commend the motion to the House and thank the opposition for their support.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
Reference to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:57): I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011;
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012; and
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012.
Question agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Same-Sex Relationships
Reference to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:57): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Private Members’ business, order of the day, motion moved by Mr Wilkie relating to same-sex marriage.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
Report from Committee
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:57): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I seek leave to make a statement on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-12 in discharge of the committee's requirement to provide an advisory report on the bills and to present a copy of my statement.
Leave granted.
Ms OWENS: The committee has endorsed the comments of this statement. On 8 February 2012, the Selection Committee referred Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-12 to the committee. The appropriation bills, together with other government documents, are subject to wide scrutiny by Senate committees as part of their estimates function.
On 9 February 2012, the Senate referred Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) to Senate committees for examination and report as part of additional estimates. Eight committees of the Senate will conduct wide-ranging scrutiny of executive government over the next four days. It was the view of the committee that it would unnecessarily duplicate the work of these Senate committees and possibly create confusion amongst witnesses if it attempted to undertake its own, concurrent examination.
The committee, therefore, has agreed not to inquire into the bills and recommends that the House consider the bills under normal processes.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (11:59): by leave—The coalition members agreed to the discharge of this inquiry by the Standing Committee on Economics, but it is worth putting on the record some of the background as to why the initial referral of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-12 to the committee took place. The referral was done as a safeguard because we have unfortunately seen from this government's past form an increase in the debt ceiling that was pushed through as part of the appropriation bill. With Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4), the coalition was very aware of its responsibility to the Australian people to ensure that once again the government was not attempting to increase the debt ceiling through the use of these two pieces of legislation. That is the reason the referral took place.
We on this side of the chamber will remain vigilant and steadfast in our opposition to the continued reckless spending of this government and to the lack of good control when it comes to debt and deficit. For that reason we will continue, where appropriate, to refer bills—even if they happen to duplicate some of the work the Senate is doing—if it means putting in place a safeguard to protect Australia's future and the Australian people from the reckless spending of the Labor government.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Significant Incident Directions) Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Other Measures) Bill 2011 [2012]
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Report
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (12:01): In accordance with standing order 206, on behalf of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present Report concerning the registration and declaration of members' interests during 2011.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
BILLS
Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011
Report from Committee
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:02): by leave—On Thursday, 24 November 2011 the Selection Committee referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report the Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011. The bill amends the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Family Law Act 1975, the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, and the Judiciary Act 1903. It also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.
The bill contains provisions to: enhance the Federal Court's powers concerning discovery; in all four federal courts, clarify the circumstances in which suppression and non-publications orders can be made, what information they can cover and what details they should contain; in all four federal courts, clarify the circumstances in which vexatious proceedings orders can be made and the kinds of orders that can be made; align the jurisdictional limit for matters heard by family law magistrates in Western Australia with that of the Federal Magistrates Court in other states and territories; and give the Administrative Appeals Tribunal more flexibility when dealing with the payment of fees.
The committee met on Thursday, 9 February to discuss the referral. The committee noted that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is currently conducting a public inquiry into this bill and is receiving submissions. The Senate committee is due to report on 22 March 2012. The committee notes that seven submissions have already been received by the Senate committee. The committee supports the public consultation process that is being undertaken by the Senate. The committee does not consider that it could add significantly to the work already being undertaken and notes that duplication is likely from a further inquiry. In light of this, the committee has agreed not to further inquire into this bill.
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (12:05): The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and cognate bills before us today in essence seek to introduce means testing to one element of our welfare system, the private insurance rebate. This change was put to the last parliament by the previous government. It was passed by this House but defeated by the coalition and some of the crossbenchers in the Senate. The Labor government believes in this reform and we intend to prevail with this reform. So here we are again debating the merits of this legislation once again, as we did in the last parliament.
At the heart of the debate is a contest over one very basic idea: that taxpayer funded welfare should be means tested, that welfare should be for those who need it the most rather than everyone who wants it. If we were to agree in this and the other place on this point, the rest would be relatively straightforward. In fact, I think it would be easy. But, unfortunately, we are not in agreement. The schism within this and the other place, the Senate, given the incompatibility of values and principles continues. Today's debate is showing that.
It is pretty ironic that it is those referred to as conservatives that want more welfare doled out to the wealthiest members of the public, irrespective of whether they need it or not. And we know that those of us on this side of the House, sometimes referred to by members opposite as 'socialists' or as espousing socialist policies, are the ones always looking to reduce any waste and unnecessary drains on the public purse through exorbitant welfare outlays. So Labor is the party that believes in giving assistance to people in proportion to their need, and that has always been the case. But this should not be a surprise, of course, given the tradition established by Labor prime ministers Hawke and Keating in the 1980s and 1990s. We Labor members on this side of the House are extremely proud of our record in means-testing welfare and in the efficiencies and level of care we have been able to sustain over the years through using public funds for the maximum public benefit as they are required, not as they are wanted. So those of us in this House note this Labor government's position: giving welfare to those who need it, not everyone who might want it.
A couple months ago, a person sat down—an accountant who himself is married with a couple of teenage kids—and he spoke of means-testing of the family tax benefit and how families over $150,000 cannot access the benefit. As an accountant, he spoke of a client of his in a double-income family who had a child, and the mother stopped paid work for a period. That family, he said, was reduced to living off the income of only the husband, a doctor of some description who only earned $160,000 per year. This is what I was told of that scenario: 'They've only got $160,000 a year to live on. And they can't even get welfare. That's not fair.' That is what he said. It is virtually a direct quote. I know that it is tough and that some people do have huge mortgages. But the members of this single-income family earning something like three times the average wage say they need welfare to get by or to raise their child in a manner they think appropriate. I do not know what the people consider appropriate or what they consider to be the basics which they cannot do without. But it seems that they think the basics cost over $160,000 per year. I find this highly disagreeable. I think most of us would find it highly disagreeable.
We know that, when we had pensioners in my electorate, for example, scraping by on a lot less than what they get now, the government of the day decided to give hefty welfare handouts to people earning 10, 20 or 30 times what pensioners were expected to live on. The private health insurance rebate subsidises the lifestyles of people earning $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 a year while pensioners, such as people on disability pensions or carers pensions, battle to make ends meet every single day of their life. To me this simply is not fair. This is not the way that I think business should be done and this is not why I came into this House.
The government says that some families and some people, like those earning three, four or five times the average wage, are not in need of assistance, unlike those earning much, much less than that, those families who are earning average wages or a little more, are paying off high mortgages or high rents and are paying money to educate their children et cetera. In the context of the bills before us, the government is saying that single people earning up to $83,000 will continue to receive the support they have and that couples earning up to $166,000 will continue to receive what they have been receiving. But those who are earning more should expect less in handouts. Those who are comparatively better off should be in less need of welfare.
Within this package, singles earning up to $83,000 and families earning up to $166,000 will see no change. Those earning a bit over these amounts are not having their handout taken away, just means-tested. They would still get rebates of 20 per cent for those up to 65 years, 25 per cent for those aged 65 to 69 and 30 per cent for those aged 70 and over. The Medicare levy surcharge for people in this tier who do not hold appropriate private health insurance will remain as it is, unchanged. Those who are even better off—for example, singles earning more than $96,000 a year and couples or families earning more than $192,000—naturally need less assistance than those on much lower incomes. Accordingly, they will receive rebates of 10 per cent for those up to 65 years, 15 per cent for those aged 65 to 69, and 20 per cent for those aged 70 and over. The surcharge for people in this tier will be increased by one quarter of one per cent. Singles earning more than $124,000 a year and couples or families earning more than $248,000 a year will not receive assistance.
Within the context of the state that I come from, South Australia, and using the last ABS figures and statistics for 2006, we are looking at the top 3.6 per cent of wage earners who will not get any of this welfare. I note that that is 3.6 per cent in my home state of South Australia. I cannot imagine why anyone would think that the top 3½ per cent of earners need welfare to get by. I do not believe that a single person, one for instance earning something like $3½ thousand clear per fortnight, would need welfare to survive. I do not believe that a family with an income of some $7,000 per fortnight is so impoverished that they need welfare and a handout from taxpayers. A lot of those taxpayers are earning a hell of a lot less than they are.
The idea that an ordinary member of our community—for instance, a single person earning an average wage of around $1,600 per fortnight—should be paying taxes to subsidise the lifestyle of someone earning double or triple what he or she earns is pretty wrong. It is wrong that people and families earning ordinary, average wages—doing it tough—or perhaps even earning a little bit more than the average wage, paying their mortgages, trying to get their kids through school and paying the bills, have been paying taxes for a long time to subsidise those households that are earning double, triple and quadruple what they earn.
The arguments about the government needing to dole out more and more taxpayers' money to preserve the integrity of the private health insurance industry are a smokescreen for a system of highly regressive wealth redistribution, making low- to ordinary-income earners hand over their hard-earned wages to fund the lifestyles of people who are far better off than themselves.
I do not see this as welfare, and neither do a lot of other people. This really should be stopped. There are better things for which taxpayers' funds could be used. Pensioners are calling out for more assistance. We see them struggling on a regular basis. I have one of the 'oldest' seats in the country, with the highest demographic of people over 65, and I see it every day, at street corner meetings and at forums. Pensioners are doing it tough and are calling out for more assistance. How can we justify giving out handouts to the top three per cent of earners in my state when at the same time we have people—pensioners especially, including people on disability pensions and their carers—who are doing it so tough?
For example, Public Service and Defence superannuants are calling out for better indexation. Again, how can we give welfare to the top three per cent of earners when we have people who do not get that indexation and are feeling the pinch, such as those superannuants of Defence and the Public Service? As I said, the disabled clearly need more help. In our electorates all of us come across parents who have children with disabilities, and we know how tough they are doing it. Certainly they need a lot more help. Sadly, the Liberal and National parties across from us disagree. But I think that it is much better that these people I have spoken about—people on pensions or disability, average income earners and maybe even those with a little bit higher than average incomes—receive the help they require, rather than that top 3.5 per cent of wage earners. As I said, those opposite disagree with that. They think that the top 3.5 per cent of earners should be subsidised by the rest of the people, who are earning far less than they are. I, for one, commend to the House the bills as well as the principles of fairness and prudential public administration on which they are based.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (12:18): The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 is about two things. The first is the fact that once again the government has betrayed the Australian people by categorically ruling out means-testing of private health insurance rebates prior to an election but has then directly attacked these rebates once in government, doing exactly the opposite of what it promised. Breaching faith with the Australian people really has become part of the DNA of Labor, hasn't it? In fact, the primary deceiver in this parliament, the Prime Minister herself, said in 2006 of then health minister, Tony Abbott:
… the minister for health today claimed that I am opposed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. This is not true.
Well, it is absolutely true, Prime Minister—and once again you have demonstrated why the Australian people no longer trust anything you say.
Second, this bill is about the price hardworking Australian families are being forced to pay for Labor's billions and billions of wasted taxpayers' funds and for Labor's addiction to debt and deficit. Yes, the government is targeting hardworking Australians—the very people who help to keep communities and our economy strong, the people who take personal responsibility, the people we should be respecting, valuing and encouraging—something the coalition has been committed to while in government. It appears that the Labor government has declared war on individuals earning over $80,000 and couples earning over $160,000 a year by restricting their access to a range of government services.
The contempt this government has for Australians who are working hard to achieve a degree of financial security is a national disgrace. This is the third time the Labor government has brought this legislation to the parliament. Firstly, in the last parliament, despite those explicit and repeated promises at the 2007 election that 'federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all the existing private health insurance rebates,' Nicola Roxon went on to say, 'The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates.' Clearly people had a right to be scared. Repeated betrayals have proven they could not then and cannot now trust a single word anyone in this government says.
The Prime Minister to be, Kevin Rudd, made the same commitment in a letter to the Australian Health Insurance Association in 2007. How many more times do you have to say it? Far worse, however, have been the repeated attacks on aspirational Australian workers and working families that are simply part of a wider national Labor assault, highlighted by that 2011 budget.
But the greatest risk carried in this legislation is to the health system itself. According to the government's Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, total expenditure on health goods and services in Australia in 2008-09 was estimated at $112.8 billion. Recurrent expenditure was $107.1 billion, or 94.9 per cent of total expenditure. This equated to nine per cent of Australia's GDP. Of that funding, $49 billion came from federal government funding and $30 billion from state government funding. The remaining $34 billion was privately funded and included $19 billion paid by consumers themselves in using services, $6 billion from other non-government sources and $9 billion from private health insurance funds. According to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, as at 30 June 2011 private health funds are paying out $15 billion in health benefits to provide for the needs of the nearly 12 million Australians who carry private health insurance. That is over half of the Australian population. Of these, some 10 million have hospital cover, which accounts for about half of these costs. An Econtech report said that every dollar of funding provided for private health insurance rebates saves $2 of costs that are then paid by private health insurers.
The question we should be asking today is: how many of those people who are investing in their own health by taking private health insurance will drop out or reduce their cover because of the changes proposed by the government? What cost this will add to the public hospital system and allied health services and how will this increase waiting times? In a regional area like my own, these are very relevant questions. It will also impact on all Australians with private health insurance. Those taking that responsibility will face higher premiums in the future.
The Deloitte report released by the Australian Health Insurance Industry Association in May this year stated that 175,000 Australians would drop private health insurance within a year of means tests being applied. The fact that millions would withdraw or downgrade cover over the next five years would prove disastrous for the health system as a whole. Specifically, Deloitte found:
Significant numbers of consumers will withdraw from their private hospital cover (1.6 million consumers over five years) or downgrade to lower levels of private health cover (4.3 million consumers over five years) following the proposed policy change;
Significant numbers of consumers will also withdraw from their general treatment cover (2.8 million consumers over five years) or downgrade to lower levels of private health cover (5.7 million consumers over five years) following the proposed policy change;
Private health insurance premiums will rise 10 per cent above what would otherwise be expected. As premiums rise, private health cover will become less affordable for all consumers—
That is something we all should be very concerned about—
that is, not just those who are in the tiers;
As people withdraw from private health insurance, the burden on publically provided healthcare rises. The findings indicate that the cost of treating consumers in the public hospital system are expected to rise substantially above what is currently anticipated by Government—Deloitte estimates that additional operating costs accumulated over five years will be $3.8 billion and $1.4 billion in the fifth year alone.
In time, it is expected that the cost of servicing increased demand for public hospital services will outweigh the savings to government from the means testing of the rebate.
In addition Anop Research Services Pty Ltd was commissioned by the Australian Health Insurance Association to conduct a detailed survey of the private health insurance population regarding the federal government's plans to means-test the private health insurance rebate.
Their report found:
There is likely to be a significant drop-out from private health insurance—up to 13% in hospital cover and up to a larger 18-21% in general treatment cover, to the extent that ancillary service providers (dentists, optometrists, physiotherapists etc.) will be severely impacted.
There will be an even bigger impact on the private health insurance industry as a result of the numbers who will downgrade their level of cover—at least 24% in hospital cover and at least 34% in general treatment cover.
Drop-outs and downgrades are likely to be higher among the healthier groups, leaving a pool of less healthy members in the privately insured population.
The public hospital system will be likely to feel the impact of the potential consumer drop out, with the Medicare Levy Surcharge not a strong driver to remain in private hospital insurance.
The government owned insurer, Medibank Private, has predicted that 37,000 of their members alone will drop their cover and 92,500 will downgrade. That is from the government's own private insurer. I understand that the AMA is also on record saying that a million people will drop their private cover.
There can be no doubt that the public health system will have to pick up the pieces of this policy by treating those clients who withdraw from private health insurance. Of course, the federal Labor government is counting on the fact that much of this additional cost will fall directly onto state governments providing public hospital services. State governments around the country are extremely concerned, and rightly so. This is basically an underhand piece of cost-shifting and it should be exposed for the public to see exactly what it is. Why is this government continuously punishing people who work hard and take personal responsibility by sharing with the government in the costs of their own health service provision?
The question before the House needs to be simplified to its core elements. The coalition believes in respecting hard work and letting people manage their own affairs. The government's actions continue to show the opposite.
In my electorate I have quite a number of people who pay private health insurance. I have received from my constituents a petition with thousands of signatures demanding that this bill be opposed and, so, I oppose this bill.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:28): I rise to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011. It is interesting listening to the member for Forrest quoting all the Liberal Party's mates in the AMA and private health insurance rather than Treasury figures, which show that only 27,000 people will drop out. In fact, the Ipsos syndicated survey, Health care & insurance Australia 2009, released in November 2009, said that even fewer people, approximately 16,000 people, would drop out of private hospital insurance, which is much fewer than estimated by the Treasury. What the member for Forrest was waxing lyrical about was the notion that this would put pressure on the public health system. In fact, the 27,000 people who could drop out of private health insurance would, according to Treasury modelling, result in about 8,500 additional public hospital admissions over two years. That sounds like a lot, but it is not when you consider that there are about 4.7 million admissions each year. So the impact is very small indeed.
We took this particular policy to an election. In fact, we tried to get this legislation through in the last parliament. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 May 2009. It passed on 2 June 2009. Then it was introduced again on 19 November 2009 and was passed again on 3 February 2010. So do not come into this place and say that we have not talked about this previously and that somehow we have broken a promise. We took this to the last election. The Australian public knew what we were going to do about this. We are bringing this legislation forward. The fundamental question that should be asked in relation to this is: what sort of health system do we want in this country? Do we want a health system that provides for only the rich or a health system that provides for the many? What sort of equity do we want in our health system?
Families and individuals who pay private health insurance premiums are eligible for the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate that was brought in by the previous coalition government. Anyone who pays hospital or general private health insurance premiums for a complying health insurance policy to a registered health fund can get a 30 per cent reduction on the cost of their private health insurance. That policy, as I said, was brought in by the previous coalition government.
We have always said that that policy was one that effectively favoured the wealthy rather than the poor and workers. The truth is that that health policy is typical of the health policies of those opposite. They took $1 billion out of the health system when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister. The first act of the previous coalition government—and this was not just about health—was to immediately hit pensioners with an 18.5 per cent price hike for drugs listed on the PBS. That was in 1996. That was the first thing that they did when they came to power. And all through the time that they were in power they tried their level best to systematically dismantle the Medicare system.
Medicare exists in this country because the private health insurance industry failed. In fact, in those countries where private health insurance dominates, such as the US, they spend on average about 17.4 per cent of their GDP on health costs. In Australia, we spend about nine per cent. It is about nine per cent in the OECD. And those countries with a more socialised public health system are countries where there is greater equity and fairness. Health costs in Australia and in other nations with a generally more socialised approach are less. In countries without that, the private health insurance companies have more power and run the show. Anyone who does not think that the private health insurance companies do not run the show when they are powerful should look at the United States and how difficult it was for the Obama administration to get through more affordable health care. That was fought tooth and nail by the private health insurance industry.
We are not saying that the health and hospital system in this country should not be a mix of government funding, private health insurance, out-of-pocket expenses and third-party payments. But we are trying to reset the balance, because at the moment we have got a situation in which electors in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, who on average earn about $57,000 a year, are effectively subsidising people in Toorak and Vaucluse and giving them a benefit. The $2.4 billion that we will save as a result of this initiative will over the next three years pay for about 13,000 doctors and 26,000 nurses.
This government has a history of implementing great health reforms. Those opposite think that you should defund health; disinvest in it. That is what the Institute of Health and Welfare Found in October 2007 just before the 2007 election. They confirmed recently that this government has increased the proportion of the budget spent on health. We have increased health expenditure in this country to about 9.4 per cent of Australia's GDP. This government has made a massive investment in health. Over the next so many years we will spend about $19.8 billion extra in health. That will fund things from GP superclinics to more doctors, to more nurses, to more cancer clinics. Those are the consequences of this government's commitment to health care as opposed to the lack of commitment by those opposite.
We are making modest changes here. But we are saving the taxpayers about $100 billion over the next 40 years through this initiative. The cost of the private health insurance rebate has blown out from about $2 billion to about $4.7 billion. It is a very big impost on the Australian taxpayers. We want to get back to surplus. We want to reduce the size of government debt. We want to do that because it is the responsible thing to do. As the Treasurer has said many times, you cannot be a Keynesian in just the good times; you have to be a Keynesian in the good times and the bad times, expanding in bad times and contracting in good times.
The trouble is, when it comes to this particular legislation, which will affect or impact only a few hundred people in my electorate, those opposite do not quite get it. What they are arguing is unethical and unfair. They know that. If they came to government and reversed it, they would immediately put a huge burden on the taxpayers. The $70 billion black hole would be added to. In the last few days, we have seen the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for health asked repeatedly on radio and TV—and it has not mattered on which program, whether it is Capital Hill, Sky or Meet the Press—and in the print media to say that if they were in power they would reverse this legislation. They have not answered. On the carbon tax and the mining tax they get all bolshie and almost 'go to the mattresses'. It is almost like The Godfather, the way that they go on: it is sealed in blood that they will change it all. Here, they will not commit. They will not commit because it will add to the black hole that they already have. Remember, they are starting $70 billion below us. They know it is unfair but those opposite come in here, giving speech after speech, quoting their mates, quoting surveys and research done on their behalf. It is so typical of the coalition. They are never on the side of the workers; always the wealthy. They are never for the masses or the many; they are always for those with money. And that is exactly the situation here. Why should people in poorer electorates and workers earning, say, $20,000 or $30,000 a year be subsidising millionaires? Why should they? It is wrong to do so. I think it is simply outrageous.
I do not often quote the Australianin speeches in parliament, but I thought Mike Steketee was brilliant in his analysis of this matter on 11 February in the Australian. He talked about this rebate and he described it as 'one of the most unfair government subsidies ever devised'. I agree with what he has to say. He blows open the lie about it. The argument from those opposite—and I have heard it said many times—is that what they did when they brought in the private health insurance rebate was induce people to go back into private health insurance, to raise the number of people who were covered. But Mike Steketee makes the point that that is not the case. He makes the point very well, and I urge anyone who might be listening to this speech to read his article. He talks about the fact that one of the things that induced people to increase their coverage, or take out coverage in the first place:
… was lifetime health cover, under which people older than 30 pay a penalty for every year they delay joining a health fund.
And the second thing, he said:
… was a large, government funded advertising campaign urging people to "run for cover" to ensure they were protected by private insurance.
He is absolutely correct in that regard. And he put it well:
In other words, it was not the now almost $5bn-a-year rebate that produced the rise in membership, but two other initiatives that cost the government hardly any money.
But those opposite, when it comes to this particular issue, really have failed. They have argued with faulty research, they have used faulty argument s—the facts do not bear out what they have to say. The truth is that what we are seeing here is a government that is committed to making sure that there is greater equity in the system.
It is always curious to me that, when it comes to health or economic issues, those opposite always argue that they are the great economic managers of the Australian public purse. We know, and the Treasury figures make it clear, that under this government the average tax-to-GDP ratio is much lower than it was under those opposite. In fact, the Howard government, proportionately, were the biggest-taxing government in the history of the country. And they did that, of course, without spending on infrastructure, schools and public hospitals. They did not invest. The public know this, because they are seeing schools being rebuilt, they are seeing hospitals being rebuilt, they are seeing roads and ports being built—there has been a doubling of funding in my home state on roads, ports and infrastructure.
When he oversaw the health budget the now Leader of the Opposition chose to spend the money that he got on subsidies rather than on hospitals and primary care. And what we are seeing here today is simply the coalition saying no yet again: 'no' to good public policy, 'no' to good economic management, 'no' to low- and middle-income earners—just as they said 'no' to a rise in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent for all Australians. They are really effectively saying no to health reform, just as they said 'no' to GP superclinics, 'no' to Medicare locals, 'no' to GP after-hours hotlines, 'no' to the NBN. But all we see is a 'yes'—for subsidised health insurance for the wealthy.
They claim the high moral ground on financial matters, but on this particular policy I think they stand condemned. They really have failed. There is no justification for their position. They know that very well. I do not understand why people in electorates like Wide Bay, Maranoa and Wright in Queensland, which are not wealthy areas, are represented by Liberal-National Party members who really should know better. We know how important it is to say yes to good public policy, good health policy and good economic management. But they are saying no to good health policy and good economic management. By saying no to a fairer private health insurance system they are effectively giving rebates to the rich. I do not understand why people of Somerset or Ipswich who are in those positions should be doing so.
Is it fair that a family earning $65,000 living in Bundamba, in my electorate, who cannot afford private health insurance, should be paying to subsidise millionaires? I do not get that. In all good conscience, they cannot hold to their position. They cannot hold with integrity, good character and truthfulness to their position. I do not understand why they do. Means-testing the private health insurance rebate is a system that brings fairness and equity. Means-testing is the only conscionable way—the carrot-and-stick approach does work. People earning $83,000 or less, or families earning $166,000 or less, effectively will not be affected.
So I support this legislation. I think it is fair. I think it shows, once again, that the only 'liberal' thing about the Liberal Party is the liberality with which they pay money to the moneyed in this country. I support the legislation.
Mr BRIGGS ( Mayo ) ( 12:43 ): I rise to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and associated bill, which are before the parliament for the third time. It really is another example of a government that has failed to be honest with the Australian people about its intentions prior to an election—because, again, it told the electorate something very different to what these bills seek to do prior to the 2007 election, in the clearest of terms. The former Prime Minister and soon to be again Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith, wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Health Insurance Association on 20 November 2007, just prior to that election, and made it very clear, for those seeking clarification on federal Labor's policy regarding private health insurance:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
He went on:
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases. Zero per cent premium adjustment is not Labor policy.
They made very clear to the Australian electorate before the 2007 election that this policy would be kept in place. In addition, on 26 September 2007, the then shadow minister for health and now Attorney-General put out a media release that said:
Federal Labor rejects the Liberal scare campaign around the Private Health Insurance rebates.
The Liberal Party scare campaign this morning reared its head in South Australia.
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates …
So their intention prior to the 2007 election was very clear: they would not change this. Yet this is the third time we have seen this bill before the House. It is of the ilk of the there-will-be-no-carbon-tax-under-a-government-I-lead promise and is consistent with the way that the federal Labor Party refuses to take seriously its commitments to the Australian people. Prior to an election Labor says one thing to get elected and then does the very opposite afterwards. We have seen it with issue after issue. Labor refuses to be honest and upfront about how it intends to govern after an election. Instead, it says what it feels that it needs to say to people before an election.
There are very good reasons why this means-testing will have a genuine effect on the private health insurance system and, therefore, on the public health system. We heard the previous speaker make the point that anyone earning over $80,000 is now rich. They could not possibly be someone that the Labor Party would be interested in, because they are rich and can sustain themselves, so there is no need to help with policy for those people. The Labor Party campaigns against the rich—we hear it every day in here. It campaigns against aspiration and it campaigns against people who try to make the most of their own ability. Now it is trying to make it harder for people who earn over $80,000.
We in this place all know that families in Australia who have an income of $160,000 are not rich. Particularly in our big cities, like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and even in Adelaide, the cost of living for those families is quite high. So things like private health insurance become very real choices for those families. That will be a real outcome of this bill if it is successful, and that is why we oppose it. If you take away this assistance, people will look at the discretionary spending they have—private health insurance fits into that area, particularly for those people who can afford it. They will look at their budgets as things get tougher from the impacts of things such as the carbon tax and, sadly, job losses throughout our country. They will start to look at their budgets and decide whether they should keep things like private health insurance.
Some of us know that the make-up of the insurance pool is very important in setting the price of premiums. If you take away the people who pay substantially for it and do not use it very much, you will impact enormously on the costs. If those people do not have an incentive to continue with their private health insurance it will lead to increasing pressure on the public health system. We often hear from the Labor Party the line that apprentices should not be paying for rich people's private health insurance subsidies. What the Labor Party fails to mention when it says this, or when it uses this example, is that apprentices will find it even harder to get health care if you take away the incentive for people to be in the private health insurance scheme in the first place. We want people who can afford to use the private health system to do so, because it takes pressure off the public health system. We want the apprentices to be able to access those services. They are the people the public health system is there to help. It is a safety net to ensure that people throughout Australia are well cared for.
If you make it harder on a government's budgets—and we know that with an ageing population we have a demographic challenge; we have a structural deficit coming at us—it will get harder and harder for those services to be delivered. So the example that is used, the class warfare example that we hear day in and day out from the Labor Party, actually backfires on the very people Labor claims it represents. It backfires the most on people such as the apprentices. If private health insurance is a discretionary payment, if someone can decide not to have it because they do not need it and so take their money out of the insurance pool, it will impact on the price significantly. It makes it harder for those older people in our society who scrimp and save to pay their private health insurance; it makes it very difficult for those people to continue with it. It puts more pressure on the public health system and it has a major impact on the ability of governments to deliver the universal service that we in Australia are used to and expect for the apprentice who is often cited in this chamber.
When we hear these arguments, we must look beyond the spin of the Labor Party. Putting aside the broken promise, the impact of another broken promise on the trust that people have in this government, people do not trust what the government says. They cannot trust that the government will deliver what it has said before an election that it will. Whether it be on the carbon tax or on this issue, the government cannot be honest with the Australian people about its intentions. We know that it cannot manage a budget. That is why we are in this position and why we are debating this bill again. Having been in the fiscal position of being $20 billion in surplus some five budgets ago, we are now some $300 billion in debt. We have a net debt approaching $140 billion, if the government does not spend any more money in the coming months, under this budget. We know that the Labor Party does not know how to manage its budget properly. We had the hilarious situation just two weeks ago when the Prime Minister delivered a speech about fiscal responsibility, about making the hard decisions, and then announced another uncosted spending promise. The Labor Party cannot make the right decisions to manage our budget, and it impacts on issues like this. This is a cost-saving measure that the government is moving. It will have a genuine impact on people in my electorate because it will increase the cost of private health insurance for people. It will mean fewer people take up private health insurance. We have seen the statistics that have been released. That will have an impact on services, particularly in a state like South Australia and a regional area of South Australia where the state government is defunding hospitals like the Keith hospital, which is losing money. The priorities for the modern Labor Party seem to be sports stadiums and not health services. This decision will make it harder for people in my electorate and harder for people in regional South Australia, who are already coping with fewer health services because of the way this is managed.
We know that every dollar funded by private health insurance saves two dollars of costs in the public system. Private hospitals treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia. In 2009-10 they treated 3.5 million people who had chosen to have private health insurance, taking that pressure off the public system. They perform the vast bulk of the elective surgery. We hear often about waiting lists for the public elective surgery system, and this funded private health insurance system assists in taking that pressure off. So that is another impact we will see through this bill if it is successful in this parliament. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will fight this bill because it is an important policy matter to ensure that we have a sustainable funded health system to look after those people who are often quoted by those on the other side.
The impact of this bill is that 2.4 million will be directly affected by these changes and face immediate increases in their premiums—14, 29 and 43 per cent, depending on their income tiers. A 2012 survey found that 64 per cent of the population believe that the $4.5 billion a year the government spent on the rebate was a good use of taxpayers' money, and of course using taxpayers' money involves choices about what the role of government is. This is an important role because this is about taking pressure off the public system. This will impact enormously on the ability of the private health system to cope with the changes with people's choices about whether they keep cover or not.
It is, as a starter, another breach of trust. A direct letter which could not be any clearer from the member for Griffith, the now Foreign Minister, when he was leader of the Labor Party said they would not do this. Yet this is the third time the Labor Party have sought to breach that promise in this parliament. It is the third time they have sought to bring additional costs on already struggling families in our country, those they describe as rich, those families which we say are the people who are the backbone of our society. They try to put more pressure on those people by this decision, a decision based largely on their class warfare approach to politics and their inability to manage the budget. It is a bad decision; it is a bad bill. It should not be supported. It will impact on our future opportunities and will impact worst of all on those whom these people claim that they represent.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:55): It will be no surprise to this parliament that I will portray a very different picture than the picture that was previously portrayed by the member for Mayo. I do not portray it from any class war point of view but from the point of view that funding health is about funding health, not funding insurance. I have great pleasure in rising to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and associated legislation that we have before us today. It is very important legislation because the introduction of means-testing does provide a saving, and that saving will go directly towards delivering health services to all Australians. The proposed measures that are being introduced in this legislation are means-testing of the private insurance rebate and also increasing the Medicare surcharge levy, which I did not hear the member for Mayo speak about. That is the incentive part of encouraging people on higher incomes to retain their private health insurance.
It is a whole package of legislation that we are debating here today. Yes, it has been introduced to the parliament before. It has passed through the House on a number of occasions but it has not passed through the Senate. I am a strong supporter of this legislation because I believe that, as I started my contribution to this debate by saying, when dollars are allocated for health they should go into health, not into insurance. The means-testing will make the rebate fairer. Approximately 14 per cent of single taxpayers have incomes over $83,000. I do not think that they are wealthy people but I think that they are more able to contribute to their private health insurance than the pensioners in my electorate who struggle each day to be able to pay for their private health insurance. I think that they can afford to pay a little bit more for their private health insurance than a pensioner who is on under $700 a fortnight or a pensioner couple who receive in the vicinity of $520 each a fortnight. For them, finding up to $300 a month to pay for their health insurance is a lot more difficult than it is for a single person in receipt of an income of about $83,000 a year. I have to say that any increase in health insurance does impact on all those people who scrimp and save to be able to pay their insurance, as opposed to somebody who has a lot more disposable income. When you have disposable income you can make a decision as to how you want to spend that income, but if you are on a fixed income and a lower income it is harder.
The other aspect of this legislation that I alluded to at the beginning of my contribution is the Medicare levy. Somebody on a higher income, a single person who receives $83,000 to $96,000, will have to pay a Medicare levy of one per cent if they withdraw from private health insurance. The incentive to retain their private health insurance is that they do not have to pay the levy, so it will cost them if they withdraw from private health insurance. Similarly, about 12 per cent of couples—taxpayers—have incomes above $160,000 and they currently receive approximately 21 per cent of the private health insurance rebate. I do not think that is fair. I think that that private health insurance rebate should be directed to those people with the greatest need. This is not class welfare; this is about ensuring that people who can afford to pay do pay and that those who need the rebate actually receive it. That is very fair and very straightforward. It is not about ensuring that those at the top end have their private health insurance contributions covered by a rebate.
I will give a snapshot of my electorate of Shortland. In Shortland, 49 per cent of the residents have private health insurance. I am one of those. I am also one of those that the rebate will impact on. I think that is fair. I think it is fair that I should have to pay a little bit more because I know that, of the 49 per cent of people in the Shortland electorate who have private health insurance, a very high proportion of those people are pensioners. Shortland is the 11th oldest electorate within this parliament, which means that a very high proportion of people living there are pensioners. I know that when I have a young person who comes to see me who is on a higher income and a pensioner, it is invariably the pensioner who has the private health insurance. This legislation will not impact on those pensioners in any shape or form.
I also decided to have a look at the income composition of the Shortland electorate. The proportion of families in the Shortland electorate who are earning under $650 per week is 29.2 per cent. That is an incredibly large percentage of people on a very low income. Of those, I know that there are a large percentage who do have private health insurance. The median income in the Shortland electorate is $1,046, which would put the median annual income of people in the Shortland electorate well below that $83,000.
I also know that there are a number of people in the Shortland electorate who need medical services and they have to wait to be able to get those medical services. It will benefit them a lot more if the money is spent directly on health rather than on subsidising my private health insurance. To me, there is no question about the best way to spend your health dollars.
It is interesting to note that the 2010 Intergenerational report said that the private health insurance rebate is the fastest growing component of the Australian government's health expenditure and will increase by over 50 per cent in real terms for the period 2012-13 to 2022-23. That is not how we should be spending our health dollars. We should be spending our health dollars on delivering to those Australians who need a bed in a hospital, who need an operation or who need to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. That money should not be spent delivering money to private health insurance.
The Gillard government, and the Rudd government before it, has sought to rebalance its policies in the area of private health insurance. That is what this legislation is about—rebalancing. It is about trying to ensure that Australians maintain their private health insurance whilst at the same time taking the subsidy away from those people who earn more than the pensioners I referred to or more than the people on $83,000 a year. Those people, I think, can make a little bit more of a contribution to their own health insurance. I know members on the other side of the House are always very supportive of user-pays systems, so I think that those people who can afford to pay, can pay a little bit more for their contribution.
The rebate will remain unchanged for low- and middle-income earners. The pensioners in the Shortland electorate will not have to pay any more for their private health insurance. Those who have no private health insurance will be able to access services in their public hospitals a lot quicker because the money saved from putting money into insurance rebates—the fastest-growing component of the Australian government's investment in health—will go to the delivery of direct health services. That is very, very important. The changes in the Medicare surcharge levy are, once again, an incentive to ensure that people on higher incomes, not necessarily on super-high incomes, who can afford to make a contribution will have that incentive to retain their private health insurance. There is also another incentive for people to retain private health insurance, and that is the fact that we have Lifetime Health Cover, which has not been talked about very much in this debate. Lifetime Health Cover means that if you take out private health insurance by the age of 30 you pay less than if you take it out over the age of 30. For every year after that there is a two per cent increase in the cost of your private health insurance and after you join there is a 10-year moratorium on it. So if you take out private health insurance at the age of 40 you will be paying 10 per cent more than somebody who takes it out at the age of 30. This is about rebalancing, as I mentioned a moment ago, and encouraging younger people to take out private health insurance earlier, particularly younger people with greater disposable incomes.
These reforms will provide a fairer distribution of benefits, ensuring that all those people who need assistance with their health insurance rebate obtain it and that those who can afford to contribute do so. This will result in savings of $2.4 billion for the government over three years, and $2.4 billion invested in health will make a real difference to health services on the ground. I know, coming from my electorate, that there are many people who would be advantaged by having greater access to services. It is all about greater access, more money put into primary health care and a better balance of the health system. I do not think there has ever been a government that has put more into rebalancing the health system in a number of ways than the Gillard and Rudd governments.
The previous coalition government brought The Blame Game report to the House Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. That identified a number of problems. There were problems related to insurance. They did nothing. The Gillard government and the Rudd government have acted to put money directly into health and to resolve the problems in the health system that the previous Howard government refused to address. This is good legislation and it should be supported by all the members of this parliament.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (13:10): I rise to speak on the measures that are outlined in these bills—yet again. This is not the first time that this government has sought to force these measures on this House. Here we are again having the same debate. The government simply does not seem to get the point. I rise to speak on these bills because our position on these bills has been a matter of faith for the Liberal Party for a very long time. We have always sought to encourage and reward people who seek to take responsibility for themselves and to support those in their family and around them in their community and other places. These bills are very much an attack on that notion of self-reliance in our community.
More significantly, though, is that these bills before us again show that it is another day under this government and another Labor deceit. This is another broken promise thrown on the scrap heap along with the infamous words we all know so well in this place—and, more importantly, which are known well beyond this place—that there would be no carbon tax under the government the Prime Minister led. That is a reality, and the promises that were made to the Australian people prior to 2007 have also been broken in the way the carbon tax pledge was broken by this government. Minister Roxon said in a release prior to the election when she was the shadow minister that:
… Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates …
She did not say 'some' or 'one' or 'two'; it was a categorical statement on all of the existing private health rebates.
She claimed:
The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.
Clearly this is a total breaking of that pledge to the Australian people. Those who sit in this place and like to think that they hold the government to account and keep them honest should oppose this bill if for no other reason than to make this government understand that you cannot go to an election and make a promise of this nature and then so flagrantly and blatantly walk away from it on the other side of an election. For those who sit in this place who like to hold themselves up as pillars of virtue in ensuring the credibility and integrity of this chamber, in holding government to account they must oppose this blatant deceit by the government in bringing these matters before this House. Clearly, Labor’s word and its promises to the Australian people mean absolutely nothing, as demonstrated again in these bills.
Here we are today faced with yet another attempt by the government to means test the private health insurance rebate—a measure the parliament has already rejected twice. These are dishonest bills. Contrary to the position being put, including by the former speaker, abolishing incentives for private health insurance is not about more funds for health. That is not what it is about. That is not what is being provided for here. That is the spin that they want to put on it for the Australian people, but it is not what is being provided for. Abolishing incentives for private health insurance, which these bills of this government propose, in breach of their promise, is about taxing Australians more. It is about taxing Australians more, yet again, to pay for the waste and mismanagement of an incompetent and failed government. The health tax we now have in the form of this bill, the carbon tax and the mining tax are all about this government reverting to its old Labor type of taxing and spending. We see it yet again in the nature of these measures. Nothing is safe from this government's wrecking ball. People will pay a price for a carbon tax that they do not need and certainly do not want, because their Prime Minister deceived the Australian people. The bill before us would not only put more pressure on the budgets of Australians, who are already doing it tough under this government's policies; it would also put further strain on our public health sector, which is already pushed to the limit, a problem which this government pledged to solve.
Should these changes come to pass, Australians will be faced with a choice of struggling to pay for health insurance, which many cannot afford, or being forced into a queue at an increasingly overcrowded public hospital as a result of these measures because this government has, once again, gone back on its word.
Our health system is finely balanced. I note that the former Labor speaker, the member for Shortland, said the government does want to rebalance it, in another effort of this class-envy struggle that it fabricates and perpetuates in this place but that has no place in this country. Those days went long, long ago.
The reason for what the government describe as their 'great departure' has long departed. They sit continually on this notion of class warfare and envy. They need to move on. Those days have passed. Australia is a different society today where people can actually move forward, take responsibility for themselves and their families, provide for themselves—and they should be encouraged to do so. That is the Australian way and it is being objected to in this bill.
The private and public sectors are inextricably linked. They depend on each other to meet the needs of our community. This is an important part of our health system. We do not just have a public health system, and neither do we just have a private health system. One thing that has been very successful in this country, although not perfect, has been the nature in which we have fostered the development and investment in both parts of our health environment. It is important that we have people operating on the private side of the healthcare industry and in the provision of health care as well as they operate on the public side. A change of this magnitude to the cost of private health insurance cover will only drive people out of the doors of private facilities and onto the waiting lists in overstretched and under-resourced public sector facilities.
In June last year, Minister Roxon said the proposal would only affect 'in the order of hundreds of thousands' because the means-testing plan was scaled. Three days later, it was revealed that more than 2.4 million Australians with private health insurance would be forced to find up to $935 extra a year for their premiums if the means test for the 30 per cent rebate were passed. That is certainly not negligible or minimal, as this government has claimed.
One in four of the 10 million Australians who have health insurance will be slugged by this measure. Perhaps the minister should take another look at her spreadsheet. In the order of 2.4 million people will be directly affected by these changes. They will face an immediate jump in the premiums by 14, 29 or 43 per cent, depending on their income tier.
This is typical arrogance from a government that clearly does not care about Australians who make an effort to look out for themselves—people who work hard to set themselves up for life and who make sure they can take care of their families when accidents happen or illness strikes. It is not just those on higher incomes who will feel the pinch of these hikes. Deloitte predicts that health fund premiums across the board will rise by 10 per cent for all those who are paying private health insurance. Public elective surgery waiting list times will surge by 400 per cent. This bill will have very real consequences for millions of Australians.
In 2010, private health funds contributed $12.4 billion in benefits towards the health care of 11.7 million Australians who held some form of private health cover. In my own seat of Cook, in Sydney's Sutherland shire, 72 per cent of residents are covered by private health insurance. That is more than 100,000 people in my electorate who are supported, assisted and provided with some relief from these measures. They do not ask for much and they are not asking for anything to be changed. They just want a fair go. They do not want this government continuing to whack them at every opportunity through some sort of class-envy driven agenda, which likes to somehow stereotype people in electorates such as mine or in other places as being rich, or things of that nature. It is just not true. More than 100,000 people in my electorate will be impacted by these changes.
Measures such as the private health 30 per cent rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge make private health insurance more affordable. They achieve two goals: easing the strain on wallets for those who choose to set aside money to look after themselves when they get sick and easing the burden on our public hospitals.
In my electorate, along a main road in the shire there are two hospitals that sit opposite each other at a set of traffic lights: Sutherland Public Hospital on one corner, Kareena Private on the other. I think this is symbolic of the way our public and private health systems work together. These two hospitals are seemingly independent of each other. They stand alone, yet they meet the healthcare needs of my constituents and service the growing demands of an ageing population in my electorate. They become inter-reliant. It is a finely balanced equation.
Private hospitals currently treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia. Private hospitals perform the majority of elective surgeries. But if premiums leap and rebates are slashed and people cannot afford to meet those changes, something will have to give. People will literally cross the road, cross The Kingsway, to go from Kareena Private Hospital to the Sutherland Public Hospital.
Last year I was at the opening of some new facilities at Kareena Private Hospital. One point was made by the company that runs that hospital: the high level of private health insurance that exists in the Sutherland shire means they can make a positive business decision to continue to invest their private resources in improving the facilities and infrastructure for healthcare needs in my community. It is that high level of engagement and take-up of private health insurance in the shire that leads to that, and that is what is at risk.
The member for New England has been pointing out in regional areas that this bill threatens the operation of private facilities in attracting the specialists and others into regional areas because of the existence of private facilities. That is not just true in the bush; it is also true in the shire. It is true that, where there are high levels of private health insurance take-up, companies are more inclined to invest in increasing the level of infrastructure in private health facilities that are available to these constituents.
At the end of the day, this bill will mean more people sitting on seats in public emergency rooms rather than being in private hospitals. More people will take up beds in wards and places on waiting lists because they have no other choice. And our public hospitals will struggle to meet the demand. We are not just talking about one or two people. Deloitte found that, as a result of means testing, 1.6 million Australians would exit their private hospital cover over five years compared with Treasury estimates of just 25,000. Another 4.3 million will be forced to downgrade their level of cover, and the public sector will experience $3.8 billion in recurrent costs.
I received a letter from one of my constituents who is at the end of her tether. She is a single person earning over the threshold and she has sat down and done the sums like many responsible Australians have. She tells me that if her health insurance was to go up by much more she would have no choice but to drop her membership as she simply could not afford it. She writes:
… even though I am on what most would consider a good income, when you are the sole earner paying a mortgage … there is often no 'fat' in your budget to accommodate such increases.
She goes on to say:
I feel that I am working hard, contributing income tax, paying off my own home and paying for private health insurance. All these things ensure that I am not a burden on the state now or in the future. If health insurance premiums are increased so dramatically I will not be able to maintain the insurance and will have to give it up.
My constituent works in the public health sector and says very clearly:
I don't wish to add myself to an already overstretched system. However, if it comes down to being able to afford a roof over my head, the insurance will have to go.
These are real people doing it tough, and all they get from this government is another slap in the face.
Treasury estimates claim that savings from the means testing will equate to $1.9 billion over four years but, if you apply the basic principle of cause and effect, people exiting the private system en mass can only head in one direction. Deloitte estimates that the increased demand for the public hospital system over four years will cost $2.4 billion, so by the fifth year the total costs from this bad policy will exceed and outweigh the projected savings, something fairly common in tax increases that this government introduces. In estimates last year, Medibank Private revealed that for its company alone 37,000 customers would likely drop their private health cover because of the means test. Repeating this pattern across the nation's other 38 providers makes for a very grim picture.
Australians are living longer than ever before and preventative health has become immeasurably more important. Our healthcare sector needs to be more than just reactive. Making good lifestyle decisions is now critical. It is important to be proactive and have regular checkups, to be able to visit the dentist, the physio, the optometrist or the psychologist as needed to prevent problems developing down the track. This is just as important for the individual as it is for the society that cares for them. Preventable diseases account for almost 20 per cent of Australia's total health costs, and private health insurance has played a vital role in ensuring Australians have access to preventable health advice and services to save both pain and money in the long run.
This is what will be affected by the bill that is in front of us. This is what is at risk. This government has come into this place to introduce an envy driven measure simply to try to raise some cash to fund its ever-increasing blowouts. In my shadow portfolio alone, blowouts on border protection are almost $4 billion and counting. I do not think people should have to give up their private health insurance simply because this government cannot manage its borders, its finances or anything else.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:25): Madam Deputy Speaker, I extend my appreciation for your assistance with my participation in this debate today. I support the three bills before the House: the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011.
It is my intention to briefly deal with the content of the bills that are before us and to put that on the record, and also to address both the implications for my own electorate and some of the arguments that have been presented in opposition to the bills. I acknowledge at the outset that those arguments in opposition have not been followed by a commitment to have a different position after the next election, so it will be interesting to see what the sustainability of those arguments will be.
It is proposed in these bills that there be three new private health insurance incentive tiers introduced with the intention of better balancing the mix of incentives for people to take out private health insurance. The proposed measures will, firstly, introduce means testing for the private health insurance rebate and, secondly, increase the Medicare levy surcharge for people on higher incomes who do not hold appropriate private hospital cover. The proposed private health insurance tiers will operate in accordance with new thresholds for the 2012-13 financial year if they are implemented on 1 July this year.
The reality of these new tiers is that a single person earning $83,000 or less will see no change. A family earning $166,000 or less will see no change. The changes to the rebate and levy commence at the first tier level for people earning $83,000 to $96,000 as a single and $166,000 to $192,000 as a family. There are two further tiers, so that for a single to not have a rebate at all they would have to be earning more than $129,000 while a family would have to be earning more than $258,000—that is, they would need to earn more than a quarter of a million dollars before the rebate was gone on private health insurance. The Medicare levy surcharge would continue for those three tiers at one per cent, but for people earning $86,000 or less as a single or $166,000 or less as a family there would be no change to the levy surcharge.
That is the proposition being put in place through these bills. It is a new means-testing arrangement and its intention is to make the rebate fairer and more sustainable over time. It has been a priority of this government to ensure that we get the balance right between government subsidy and personal responsibility regarding these sorts of costs, and we believe that that is what these bills do.
It is important to point out that the Treasury estimates, that contribute to these bills, indicate that 99.7 per cent of people are expected to remain in private health insurance under the combined initiative of these three bills. Around 27,000 individuals with incomes between $83,000 and $96,000 for singles and $166,000 and $192,000 for families may drop their private health insurance cover, according to the Treasury estimates. It is also important to acknowledge that there are 7.75 million Australians whose private health insurance cover will not be affected by the changes in these bills, and they are the people, as I indicated earlier, earning under their commencement tiers—that is, under $83,000 for singles or $166,000 for couples. It is also important to acknowledge that around 1.7 million adults—that is, 670,000 singles and 520,000 families—will receive a reduced rebate and pay a higher net premium. It is important to recognise we do not deny the fact that we are seeking a greater individual contribution from those we believe are capable of making it. Many on the other side have put the argument that this is about calling these people rich and not acknowledging the pressures on them of the cost of living. Far from it! It is an acknowledgement that people pay and contribute according to their capacity, and we believe in the tiered system that as people's income increase they have the capacity to make a co-contribution towards these particular levies.
I want to indicate what those figures mean for my own area of Cunningham. In Cunningham there are 1,060 singles and 520 couples who will be impacted by the changes to the tiers for the payment of the rebate. In putting this in the local context it also important to acknowledge that in my own area there has been an unprecedented investment in health—in particular, health infrastructure and the health workforce—that I had not seen prior to Labor coming to government and which certainly did not happen under the Howard government. Indeed, it did not happen under previous state Liberal governments in my area. I well remember for many years the western end of Wollongong Hospital being a hole in the ground. It had been dug out by the previous Labor government in preparation for a whole new wing and it remained a hole in the ground until a Labor government was re-elected and the new wing of the hospital was built.
I am also pleased that under a federal Labor government there has been a significant contribution to the capital for the Cancer Care Centre at Wollongong Hospital, and a significant amount has gone to the Shoalhaven outreach arm of that cancer care so that cancer services across our region are far more effectively delivered now than they have ever been. Only recently I announced new capital injections for a range of GPs in my areas to expand their own private clinics to be able to provide a wider range of services and more preventative health services than they were able to do previously. So there has been for the constituents of my area a significant increase in the health services being delivered. The new Medicare Locals and the new hospital boards will further see a better local responsiveness to those sorts of health needs.
It is true that there will be a percentage of people in my electorate who will look at paying a higher Medicare private health insurance payments than they currently do. I do not believe what I would consider to be scaremongering about the number of people that will drop private health insurance because they have to pay a bit more for it.
That brings me to the issue I want to address, in the last half of the time I have to address the bills before us, about the arguments that have been put in opposition to these bills. The member for Mayo spoke not long before I contributed to this debate. Broadly, there are a couple of things that the opposition are basing their arguments to these bills on. Firstly, they are putting the argument—it is a bit ho-hum, but to be expected I suppose—about broken promises, which they argue that this is. I indicate to them that this is the third time these bills have been brought before this House, and they were brought before this House before the last election. In fact, this is a continuation of an attempt by this government to deliver a better balance in this area. It was certainly clearly outlined as we debated the issue—as many of those opposite have pointed out—before the last election. So it is important that we put the record straight on what the history of these bills has been before this chamber.
Secondly, the argument by those opposite about whether or not people are rich—this sort of class-warfare debate—is a fairness debate. I sometimes find it quite astonishing that I stand in this place arguing about what I would have thought were long-term traditional Liberal Party values about self-resilience, self-reliance and getting rid of the hand of government in our lives. It was fascinating during the carbon tax debate to hear this side of the chamber arguing for a market based solution and the other side saying: 'No, we want a managed economy. We are going to pick and choose winners and where we put government money to address a problem.' Here we have the same thing again. Here we have our side of the parliament arguing that government should only be intervening and providing support where it is necessary and those on the opposite side arguing that it does not matter how much you earn, you have got a right to expect something from the government. I think most Australians are at a much more balanced position than that. They think that governments should provide support but they also think that people should be able to provide support for themselves and their families according to their capacity. That is what these bills are working towards doing.
I mention the member for Mayo contributing to the debate because I acknowledge that on 7 February he had a column in the Australian Financial Review where he outlined what I would have thought were the very arguments that would underpin the importance of this particular debate and provide support for the position that the government seeks to put in place with these bills. In this article the member for Mayo said:
Rather than lecturing European governments over their debt crisis, our Prime Minister would be better advised to tend to her own backyard. After years of waste and mismanagement, Australia's budget future hangs in the balance.
Many of Europe's debt problems are due to popular but overly generous social welfare programs.
Most commentators now acknowledge that European governments have been writing cheques for years without any consideration of whether they could afford to do so. This has resulted in an intergenerational debt crisis.
Unfortunately, Australia's long term fiscal position is in danger of being placed in an eerily similar position because of a growing government-driven culture of dependence.
I was quite surprised, therefore, when the member for Mayo got to his feet. I anticipated on the back of this writing and public contribution to public policy debate that he was about to announce that he was supporting these bills, because these bills do exactly what it is that he was arguing in his column good government policy should do. He further quotes the Leader of the Opposition:
Tony Abbott's framework economic speech last week made a fundamentally important point: governments should do only what people can't do for themselves, and no more.
That is exactly the foundation and the concept behind the bills before us. I am astonished that those opposite would continue to oppose them, except that it is clear it is purely a political position.
Finally, in the few minutes I have left I want to address the final argument which is that this opposition to the bills is about greater good for all because all of these people will drop out of private health insurance, they will all be back onto the public system and therefore it is an impost on everybody, not just on those who are on the higher tiers of income. The reality is that this drop out has never happened previously. In 2008, when the government increased the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, there were insurers predicting that 913,000 people, about ten per cent of those with hospital cover, would drop their private health insurance as a result of the threshold changes. That was a PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the insurers peak body.
The opposition spokesperson on health said that one million people would leave private health insurance as a result of that change. The reality is that that drop out never happened; instead, the number of people with hospital-level private health insurance has steadily increased since that time. As at September last year, 10.4 million people in Australia have hospital cover. That is the highest number since the introduction of Medicare. Even the evidence of what has happened with previous changes to the levy surcharge does not sustain the scare campaign of those opposite. These are sound bills based on good health policy, sound economic management and good fiscal responsibility. It is astonishing that those opposite continue to oppose them. We can only assume that they do it for gross political benefit.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:38): Once again, I stand in this House to speak on a bill that is a direct result of another broken Labor promise—the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and related bills.
I would like to start by reading a letter sent to the honourable Dr Michael Armitage, the chief executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association, dated 20 November 2007 and signed by the then leader of the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd:
Thankyou for your letter of 29 October 2007 seeking clarification on Federal Labor's policy regarding private health insurance.
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions … that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases …
I understand Nicola Roxon's office has also confirmed with you that Federal Labor has no plans to require private health insurance funds to make equivalent payments to public hospitals for patients who elect to be treated as private patients.
I think this clearly bears out my opening comments that this is another broken Labor promise. Contrary to that letter, we stand here today witnessing another betrayal of the Australian people. This is a government that continues to go back on its word, continues to break promises and continues to implement bad policy aimed at increasing the cost of living for every Australian.
Proposed within this bill is a provision to implement three new income tiers. It is interesting to look at the part of the argument that says that the poor are subsidising the rich and there is inequity in the system. Let us have a look at some real figures. If you are on an income of $30,000 per year, you are paying approximately $4,000 per year in tax and Medicare levy. If you double that income to $60,000 per year, your tax and Medicare levy payments go up to about $12,500 per year—that is three times more. If you triple your income to $90,000 per year, your tax and Medicare levy surcharges grow by five times. When we look at those figures it is quite clear that, in direct contrast to statements made by colleagues opposite, as you earn more income, you pay more tax and you pay a higher Medicare levy: you are already contributing significantly to the economic welfare of this country. People earning a lower level of income are certainly not subsidising those earning higher levels of income.
The tiers will determine the amount of rebate that families will be entitled to. We are facing increasing costs of living and higher taxes through the carbon tax coming in from 1 July and these add to the growing list of pressures that people are facing daily. That is the big concern. As was pointed out earlier, previous increases or changes may not have led to a large exodus from private health insurance. But we are in a different economic environment today. The key findings of the Deloitte report were that 1.6 million consumers would walk away from private health insurance and a further 4.3 million would downgrade their cover.
Even if those figures are not all realised, there is going to be a significant additional cost to our public health system at a time when it is already struggling to maintain pace with the requirements on it. In addition, the Australian Health Industry Association has conducted some phone polling. Of those people polled, around 11 per cent said they would drop their hospital cover and a further 24 per cent would downgrade their policies. More than half of those surveyed said they would drop their ancillary or general cover. This is very concerning at a time when we are looking to rein in the costs of our public hospital system and where we are looking for that system to be able to meet the pressures that are presently on it. This mass exodus from private health insurance will only add to that strain.
You only have to look at today's Gold Coast Bulletin to highlight this argument. There is an article talking about a 67-year-old lady who could not feel her fingers and waited for more than four years to see a neurosurgeon because she was classified as a semi-urgent patient. This woman is among 2,000 Gold Coasters currently waiting to see a neurosurgeon. In addition, neurosurgery and ear, nose and throat surgeries are all reported as having some of the highest waiting periods. Another article in the Courier Mail referred to the fact that parents of children with ear, nose and throat problems are being told to consider paying for private treatment despite living in one of the most disadvantaged areas of South East Queensland.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (13:45): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Child Care
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (13:45): I rise to express my concern at changes that the government has made to child care under the National Quality Framework. As of 1 January this year, childcare operators had to reduce their child-staff ratios from five to one to four to one. The impact of this has been to dramatically increase the cost of child care to families. For example, I have in my electorate a mother, Mrs Geeta Kulkarni, from Boronia, whose child attends the Magic Garden Childcare Centre in Ferntree Gully. She informs me that the new changes have led to a fee increase of 21 per cent, or $65 per week. She asks:
Why are we penalised for working hard and paying our taxes? The changes in staff-to-children ratios will not make a life-changing impact on my child. All of us were very happy with the care being provided before.
The government has introduced these new ratios for no discernible benefit. There is no research that says one to four is better than one to five and even if there is, why can't parents make their own decisions about the level of care they want?
If a parent like Mrs Kulkarni is happy with the quality of care, and if the childcare centre is happy to provide that level of quality, then what is the problem that the government is trying to fix? The government is making the cost of child care dramatically more expensive for everyday Australians and making it unaffordable for many, for little benefit. It should abandon this policy. (Time expired)
Twenty20 Cricket
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise today to mention Twenty20 cricket in Tasmania. The inaugural Twenty20 interstate competition was an outstanding success with record sell-out crowds attending matches at Blundstone Oval in Bellerive. This format of cricket has captured the imagination and interest of Tasmanians and of Australians elsewhere. It has provided an opportunity for families to enjoy this shorter version of the game. I support the endeavours of Robin McKendrick, Chairman of the York Park Inveresk Precinct Authority, in seeking to bring that form of the game to Launceston. I feel that this can be supported as we now have AFL games in the north and south of the state. I also wish to congratulate the Hobart Hurricanes for making the recent semi finals of the Twenty20 Big Bash competition. This is a further reflection of the depth of cricket within Tasmania, as witnessed by a Tasmanian, George Bailey, captaining the Australian Twenty20 side. I can recall, when Tasmania was first admitted to the Sheffield Shield competition, it was allocated only one game each year against each state. Tasmania is now the current holder of the Sheffield Shield and is the yardstick against which all other states must judge themselves.
Hendra Virus
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:47): The humble flying fox is still creating havoc in my electorate, including the townships of Gayndah, Tannum Sands and Gladstone. The Hendra virus has claimed at least four human deaths, numerous horse deaths and at least one dog death that we know of. There are still many mysteries surrounding the virus and there still remains a lot of scientific work to do to find out how this virus has occurred in our livestock, but suffice it to say that the Hendra virus is linked directly to the flying fox or the fruit bat, which it is sometimes called, due to the destruction it causes to exotic fruit orchards.
At Gayndah, a citrus-growing area, that problem has been ongoing for 17 months. A colony has taken up residency in the heart of town, threatening local businesses, water supplies and schools. It has taken this long for the state government authorities to make a move to relocate these creatures. I ask: why? Why has it taken so long? At Tannum Sands, a bat colony has also set up base camp right beside the sports oval, much to the anguish of the students, teachers and parents. There is also a colony adjacent to the Gladstone marina, which is often frequented by family groups having picnics et cetera. (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: 'South Side Rocks' campaign
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:49): I rise to speak about a very important issue: something that needs to be settled right here, right now. Today the south side is striking back against scurrilous claims made last week by the member for Fraser. Never before have I been so underwhelmed by a pitch for living north of the lake. His admission that just 14 members of the Labor caucus call the north side home really says it all. The south side landslide proves that members love it in the south. MPs have voted with their feet, and their staff as well. However, there are tens of thousands of other people who choose to live in the Canberra electorate and, with that in mind, I am launching the 'South Side Rocks' campaign—an initiative to open your mind to the benefits of life in the south via tales from the locals themselves.
Asking MPs why they live where they do can be pretty predictable stuff, but if you talk to the people of Canberra you will really get to know why the south side rocks. So I urge all south siders to write to me. Tell me why you choose to live in the southern suburbs and where you like to go. Southside residents: take a stand. We cannot let those in the north delude themselves into thinking they have got it better than we do. I urge all members living on the south to stay vigilant. Do not be sucked in by the member for Fraser's voodoo. Stay south and prosper.
Hughes Electorate: Fuel Prices
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:51): I rise to speak for the motorists of the electorate of Hughes, who last week were slugged overnight when LPG prices jumped 12c, or almost 20 per cent. Yesterday, we had an analysis released by the Australian Automobile Association showing motorists had been short changed by the so-called shopper docket discounts offered by the supermarket duopoly and that these discounts are nothing more than a big con. The analysis showed that motorists are paying more for petrol because of the duopoly, which has jacked up pump prices to cover a phoney fuel discount voucher. It also found that motorists are paying a higher price for fuel in the fuel cycle today compared with the fuel cycle of the 8c-a-litre discount before Christmas.
The newly appointed chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said:
Retailers who overstate or misrepresent the value of savings offered to consumers during special sales or promotions risk financial penalties or court action by the ACCC.
The ACCC has set the dogs on many small businesses which have unintentionally misrepresented discounts. Where is the ACCC's $330,000-a-year petrol commissioner, who, since his appointment, has been an apologist for the supermarket duopoly? It is about time the ACCC woke up—these so-called fuel discounts are a con. There is no free lunch. They are simply a misleading anticompetitive tool designed by the supermarket duopoly to destroy competition and jack up prices. (Time expired)
Syria
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (13:52): More than 6,000 people—civilians—in Syria have met their deaths at the hands of a brutal government led by Bashar al-Assad. It is very regrettable that China and Russia combined at the Security Council of the United Nations to stop measures requested by the Arab League to advance a peaceful course of reconciliation and negotiation inside Syria. I am sure those on both sides of this House strongly support the proposed meeting of a UN contact group of countries, who are not going to leave the people of Syria to be murdered by their dictator. Australia will participate actively in this group and will ensure that steps are taken to protect civilians in Syria from the brutal government which is trying to suppress them.
I have no illusions that the Syrian opposition are perfect or that they have not been heavily penetrated by al-Qaeda or Islamist groups, but there is no excuse for the senseless slaughter which is taking place in Syria. I am sure Australia, unlike Russia and China at the Security Council, will take up the role of providing a conscience in the contact group and see that civilians are protected in that awful conflict. (Time expired)
Wright Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:54): I rise to speak about the winners of the recent 2012 Australia Day awards in my electorate. My electorate is made up of different areas somewhat geographically separated from each other, so I have two lists of well-deserving recipients. The first list is of Australia Day awards announced by the Scenic Rim Regional Council, which is in the middle of the electorate. The Community Event of the Year was won by the Boonah Bookfest. The Young Citizen of the Year was Latonya Wiggington, while the Citizen of the Year was Robert Churcher. The Mayor's Award went to Brian Davison, the Senior Cultural Award to Chris Grimmett, the Junior Cultural Award to Megan Scougall, the Senior Sports Award to James Geiger and the Junior Sports Award to Iziah Tittor. The Senior Citizen of the Year was Michael Bassett—and if I get time I will come back and share with the group what Michael Bassett got up to.
Over in the Lockyer Valley, the Citizen of the Year was Monnie Raymont and the Young Citizen of the Year was April O'Brien. The Community Event of the Year was the Forest Hill Fun Day while the Australia Day Achievement Award went to Joan Quinn. The Senior Sports Award winner was Brendan Pingel, the Junior Sports Award went to Andrew Luck and the Sports Administrator Award went to Kevin and Kathy Lyons.
My congratulations go to the deserving winners of such awards across every electorate in Australia. I also congratulate all of those Australians who, on a daily basis, commit random acts of kindness that do not receive accolades or recognition. (Time expired)
Kingston Electorate
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:55): I rise today to raise my concerns about last week's decision of the Development Assessment Commission to approve car park fees at Westfield Marion shopping centre. As do many people in my electorate, I have been going to Westfield Marion shopping centre for many years now and it is incredibly disappointing, with all the cost-of-living pressures currently faced by families, that Westfield has made the decision to charge for car parking.
A number of concerns were raised with this application to introduce car parking fees. Westfield have said that they will allow two hours of free parking, but many families go to the shopping centre to enjoy a day there—maybe see a movie and get some food. Retailers have a genuine concern, I think, that shoppers will not be spending as much time there to enjoy the day and spend some money. There are also privacy concerns—cameras are to be installed to monitor people coming and going. On top of that, residents in the surrounding areas are also concerned. They are worried that the introduction of car parking fees will force shoppers who cannot afford those fees out into the residential areas—parking in front of people's homes. This could lead to a lot of congestion. So I urge Westfield Marion to reconsider. (Time expired)
Fly-in Fly-out Workers
Mr HAASE (Durack) (13:57): I rise to speak about one of the little known ramifications of the syndrome of fly-in fly-out workers, a syndrome that prevails throughout the Western Australian Pilbara, which is in my electorate: the lack of volunteers. We have just heard the words of the member for Wright praising the fact that members of his community devote their time to volunteering. Such people are the glue which keeps society together. The absence of population resident in an area leads to an absence of volunteers. The first things that fail are the sporting clubs and the emergency services clubs—there are simply not enough people to provide those services to all of the residents in the particular residential area. FIFO has been blamed for many things, but few people realise that it is volunteering—that glue of society—which is one of the first things to go. The quality of life and the general ambience of those communities suffer greatly.
An inquiry is currently being carried out into FIFO workforces by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia, and many of these things are coming to light. My experience comes from 20 years of living in Karratha, a vital town within the Pilbara. That community today is a lesser community today, with the influx of fly-in fly-out populations, than it was those 14 years ago when I lived there as a permanent resident.
National Multicultural Festival
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:58): I would like to congratulate the ACT Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Joy Birch, for the National Multicultural Festival held over the past weekend. The festival was the biggest and best ever. Over a quarter of a million people turned out for great food, dance and music and loads of community stalls. Friday was the opening concert. Saturday was the food and dance spectacular, a Pacific Islands showcase, an Indigenous showcase and an India-in-the-city program. Sunday was the Chinese New Year celebration and the Greek Glendi. The festival was a great showcase of Canberra's vibrant and strong multicultural community. Congratulations to all those involved, particularly the organisers. You did Canberra proud.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being almost 2 pm, I call the Prime Minister.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Indigenous Affairs
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (13:59): Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I wish to make a short statement. On Wednesday this week I will deliver to the House the annual Closing the Gap statement and we will have the opportunity then to speak extensively about progress made in reconciliation with Indigenous Australians. Today we are wearing a flower because it is the anniversary of the day that this parliament said sorry to the stolen generations. I believe we should mark the day that the apology was delivered. No-one who had the privilege of being in this House or listening to the apology beyond this House could have failed to be moved by the dignity of Kevin Rudd's words on that day. They were noble in their directness and moral clarity. It was a moment of grace in the life of our nation, and it gave us an insight into what a reconciled nation could look like.
This year the relevance and timeliness of the apology is more obvious than ever. We need the spirit of the apology to keep urging us on—on to the next step, which is constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, and on to the next step, too, which is directing our focus always on closing the gap. We know in our own lives that matters of the spirit and practical matters are not divorced from each other; words of apology matter, and that apology mattered in the life of our nation and we mark its anniversary today.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): Mr Speaker, also on indulgence, I echo the words of the Prime Minister on the fourth anniversary of the former Prime Minister's historic apology. Yes it certainly was the high point of the Rudd prime ministership and arguably it has been the high point of the current government. I want to cite, if I may, the words of the then Prime Minister, who said on that important day:
… unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.
I think what Mr Rudd said on that day is very important and we should remember it. I do not think we should remember that day in a spirit of self-congratulation; we should remember it in a spirit of consciousness of the magnitude of the task yet to be achieved. We have to get the children to school, we have to get the adults to work, we have to ensure that there are police in remote and other Indigenous communities so that the ordinary laws of the land apply. Yes symbolic change does matter; yes constitutional recognition is a mission as yet unaccomplished for our country. But, in the end, it is practical change that the Aboriginal people of this country need and want, and that is the task to which we should dedicate ourselves.
Reference to Main Committee
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:03): by leave—I move:
That further statements by indulgence in relation to the anniversary of National Sorry Day be permitted in the Main Committee.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:03): I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC will be absent from question time this week as he is overseas for commemorations associated with the 70th anniversary of the fall of Singapore. The Minister for Defence will answer questions in relation to defence science and personnel, veterans' affairs and the Centenary of ANZAC and the Minister for Health will answer questions in relation to Indigenous Health on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT ( Warringah — Leader of the Opposition ) ( 14 :0 4 ): I refer the Prime Minister, to whom this question is directed, to the government's own Treasury modelling that predicts that output in Australia's aluminium industry, which sustains some 10,000 families, will decrease by 61.7 per cent because of the carbon tax. Why is the Prime Minister introducing the world's biggest carbon tax when the government's own advice shows that it will destroy an industry, cost jobs and hurt struggling communities?
Ms GILLARD ( Lalor — Prime Minister ) ( 14 :0 5 ): I had the opportunity earlier today to meet with some workers from Alcoa, who of course represented hundreds of others. I did that in association with their local members—with the members for Corio and Corangamite. Interestingly, those workers did not ask me the question that the Leader of the Opposition has posed today, because they understand what is driving change in the business that they work for. They understand with a great degree of sophistication what is driving change in the business that they work for. They understand that the high Australian dollar is making a big difference to their business—there is a big pressure on their shoulders. They understand, too, that we are seeing low prices around the world for aluminium. They understand, as well, that our economy generally is in a very different condition from the nations of Europe. Indeed, they volunteered that to me. Compared with the Leader of the Opposition's fear mongering—
Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was about the government's deliberate policy to reduce output by 61.7 per cent in this industry—a deliberate policy of the government. She should be directly relevant to that question.
The SPEAKER: I could rule that comment out of order because of the imputation and argument inherent in the use of the word 'deliberate' , but I will not. I ask the Prime Minister to focus on the specifics of the question.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whether you are referring to it as an imputation or not, the assertion in the Leader of the Opposition's point of order is wholly wrong and could not be further from the truth. We want to see an aluminium industry in this country, and we will continue to work with Alcoa and the aluminium industry to ensure that it does have a future in this country.
Opposition members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence for the remainder of her answer.
Ms GILLARD: In order to ensure the industry has a future, you have to work through and understand the nature of the difficulties and problems. There is no point trying to make it up.
The SPEAKER: And that includes the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms GILLARD: I think the Leader of the Opposition should contemplate this fact: the average impact of the copper price on the aluminium sector—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will leave the House for one hour under the provisions of standing order 94(a). I have said that the Prime Minister will be heard in silence for the balance of her answer and she will be.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No. The deputy leader will leave the chamber in accordance with the standing orders.
The member for Curtin then left the chamber.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to reconsider the ruling you have just made in asking the deputy leader to remove herself from the chamber. While you asked this side of the House to remain silent, you also asked the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question and she was defying your ruling.
The SPEAKER: I asked the deputy leader to leave for one hour under the provisions of standing order 94(a) and she has. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: The statistic I was seeking to share with the House was that the average impact of the carbon price on the aluminium sector is the equivalent of a one cent increase in the exchange rate with the US. I think that gives a sense of the order of magnitude here. What is pressing on the aluminium industry is having an exchange rate which is well above parity with the US dollar, when of course their business models were factored at a different parity price with the US at a different time in Australia's history when we routinely traded far below the US dollar. That is the truth and the Leader of the Opposition should understand— (Time expired)
Queensland and New South Wales Floods
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:09): Prime Minister, how is the Commonwealth assisting communities impacted by recent flooding in New South Wales and Queensland?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:09): I thank the member for Page for her question. I know that, unfortunately, she and the community that she represents are no strangers to dealing with flood situations. I have had the opportunity to talk to the member and to members of her community about flooding there in the past.
On the weekend, I travelled to the townships of St George and Roma in Queensland and Moree in New South Wales to visit communities affected by flooding. I was accompanied by the members for Maranoa and Parkes and by Senator Barnaby Joyce for different pieces of the journey. Whilst we travelled, we had the opportunity to meet with people directly affected by flooding.
Flood waters in Queensland were starting to subside but of course there were people who were returning to their homes and seeing the damage that had been done. Many of the people that we met had actually seen their homes on this occasion flooded for the second time, and some of them for the third time. It is understandable that when people have to turn around and turn around, and sometimes turn around again, to restore their homes to liveability after a flood, it strains patience and it strains people's emotional reserves. We saw that on display in these communities. In Moree, to take just one example, I visited with Kent and Julie Harris, who invited me into their home. It was Julie's birthday and she said the best present she was going to get was to sleep in her own bed after being away from her home for 10 days.
As we have seen in other natural disasters, on this occasion we saw the best of Australia on display—the magnificent response of the volunteers, the SES and the emergency personnel, and of course the ADF, who were out in these communities helping with the clean-up. We also have Centrelink staff out there helping people get payments processed.
We are in the course of dispersing more than $5 billion to Queensland for flood recovery from the natural disasters that we lived through last year. In this set of floods, we are making assistance available. In the Australian government disaster recovery payments, we have already granted 12,473 claims that have totalled $14 million so far. The journey of recovery for these communities will continue and we will be with them as they go through that journey of recovery. Many of them also raised with me the need to look at flood mitigation and of course we will be working with those communities and the Queensland government on that. For now, our thoughts are with them as they get about cleaning up the community and their homes, and restarting their lives.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:12): My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that Queensland Alumina's parent company is reviewing its Gladstone based operations and to the comments from its chairman, John Hannagan, who said, 'Queensland Alumina will be the highest taxed industry in the country and that is a significant impact on our operations.' Why is the Prime Minister proceeding with a carbon tax when the government's own modelling says that it will reduce the industry's output by 61.7 per cent?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): Let me point out the following facts. The Leader of the National Party is misusing the modelling completely. He is ascribing a cause and effect here which the modelling does not—a continuing part of the opposition's fear campaign on carbon pricing. The one thing you always know about the opposition when it comes to carbon pricing is that whatever they say is not the truth. Let us just look at the scoreboard. They said the coal industry would be shut down. Not true. They said Whyalla would be wiped off the map. Not true. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Auditor-General disputing the government's claims that nine out of 10 households were receiving assistance and he was repudiated because his approach was not true. At every stage in every way, the Leader of the Opposition and the team he leads have been out there spreading fear and not telling people the truth. It is time that the Leader of the National Party and the opposition generally actually respected working people enough to say to them what the truth is for their industry. The truth for this industry is that we are seeing a high Australian dollar with all of the pressure that that brings to bear. The Manager of Opposition Business might be bored by that, but the one million Australians who work in manufacturing are not bored by it. They understand the pressure of the high Australian dollar on their shoulders. Those working in the aluminium industry also understand that we have seen the price of aluminium fall by over 20 per cent since May last year. We are seeing reduced global prices. Those who work in the aluminium industry—
Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the government's own modelling shows a 61.7 per cent reduction in output in this industry—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will direct herself to the substance of the question.
Ms GILLARD: In response to both the original question I was asked and what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, let me use the words of Alcoa. They would know about aluminium, you would think. Their review of their own industry, their own business, says:
The review has not been prompted by a future price on carbon. The present situation is a result of low metal prices, a high Australian dollar and input costs.
That is what Alcoa have said. No amount of twisting and turning and spreading of fear actually changes those facts. To the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, who are keen to quote modelling here, let me quote this part of the modelling:
For aluminium to 2020 output is expected to remain at about current levels with or without a carbon price.
Try telling Australians the truth.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded. Is there a supplementary question?
Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, I ask that the Prime Minister table the statement from Alcoa—
The SPEAKER: Order! The leader does not have the call. Is the leader asking a supplementary question?
Mr Abbott: I seek the tabling, as I am entitled to do, of the Alcoa document from which she was reading, which shows that the carbon tax is an issue in the problems of their plant at Point Henry.
Ms GILLARD: Mr Speaker, I was relying on notes which have confidential sections. If the Leader of the Opposition has not done his homework on this issue before coming into this parliament, that is not my problem. He pretends to care about jobs and he cannot even be bothered about reading Alcoa's statement before he comes in, apparently.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is relying on confidential notes.
Mr Truss: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the Treasury modelling on carbon pricing. It makes it absolutely clear that there will be a reduction—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat immediately. He has sought leave. I am asking if leave is granted. Leave is not granted.
Economy
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. How do the recent events in Greece and the Eurozone highlight the importance of managing the Australian economy and returning our budget to surplus in the interests of working people?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:18): I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and I also thank him and the member for Corio for meeting with me and other ministers this morning so that we could receive the workers from Alcoa. I wonder what they would make of the political use of their potential job losses by the opposition when they understand what is happening in their industry. I think they would find that a fairly dismaying tactic from the opposition.
The member for Corangamite has asked me about circumstances in the global economy, and I expect to hear interjections from the opposition because, as we know, they could not care less about circumstances in either the global economy or the Australian economy. But on this side of the parliament we have been monitoring the situation in Europe and we welcome the fact that the Greek parliament passed a package of restrictive budget measures today. It was not easy, but it had to be done. That is one step in what is a long journey of recovery for the economy of Greece, but it was a necessary step. Unless they took that step, the circumstances of a disorderly default could have been upon Greece with all of the implications for that nation and for the Eurozone and Europe in general.
This highlights the ongoing financial problems we are seeing in Europe which are reflected by credit downgrades last month to nine of the Euro area's 17 members. The ultimate proof of all of the problems there is that 23 per cent of men and women are unemployed. When Australians look at those scenes from Greece, including some of the violence that happened outside the parliament, they can rest assured that the economy of Australia is in a very different shape. We have low unemployment; we have created 700,000 since coming to office. In the same period the US economy has lost six million jobs. If the US had been creating jobs at the same rate as us, 15 million more Americans would be employed today. We have low debt—less than one-tenth of the debt of other major advanced economies—and we have a clear plan to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13, exactly as promised. That is the right thing to do for an economy growing at trend, it is the right thing to do to create space for private sector growth, it is the right signal to send to international markets that Australia is a great place to invest in and it is the right thing to do in managing the economy in the interests of working people, because at the end of the day the purpose of the economy is to serve the interests of working people and particularly give them great job opportunities and the opportunity to start their own business. We are clear on our intentions about the surplus, and that is in very stark contrast to the continuing muddle on the other side of politics.
Employment
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to recently announced job losses at Westpac, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Holden, Toyota, BHP, Reckitt's, Manildra, Norsk, Tomago, Thales, Don and Macquarie Group. Given that ANZ have just announced 1,000 jobs are to go in the next few months, does the Prime Minister now regret referring to these job losses as growing pains?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:22): To the shadow Treasurer I would say: do not verbal me. If he wants to quote one of my speeches then bring it in and quote it in full, because the idea that I have ever exhibited anything other than concern for Australians who have lost their jobs is completely untrue and I am not having the shadow Treasurer come in, as part of the campaign of fear and misrepresentation by the opposition, and pretend that is true. The people who have used workers and their jobs as political playthings in this parliament sit on the opposition front benches. They are very, very happy to walk into a steel-manufacturing business to stand alongside a steelworker while the cameras are rolling and then, as soon as the cameras have gone, they come into this place and they vote against the future of that industry by voting against the Steel Transformation Plan. They are very, very happy to go and stand in a car-manufacturing plant and look at the cars being made with the very highly skilled workers who make them, but when it comes to being counted in supporting the car industry they stand for a half a billion dollar cutback now and the end of assistance in 2015. They want every worker in the car industry to be out of a job. Of course, we know too that, whilst they pretend to be the friend of small businesses and to care about the people who work in small businesses, in this parliament they voted against tax breaks for small businesses and an instant asset write-off which would have put them into a better position and enabled them to employ people and to continue to generate jobs. They did that because they would prefer to give more money to some of the most profitable mining companies in the world.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question.
Ms GILLARD: So to the shadow Treasurer I would say that as Prime Minister I have been explaining to the Australian people and the Australian community the nature of the structural change in our economy today. Our economy is strong. The strength of our economy is driving further changes: the strong Aussie dollar, the opportunities that will come in the region of the world in which we live which is continuing to grow. That is bringing changes—painful changes—in parts of the economy and we are working with those sections of the economy and those working people in these days of change, working to increase their skills because that will be so important for the jobs of the future, working to give them the best of technology because they cannot compete if they do not have the NBN, working to get business tax right including tax breaks for small businesses, working with manufacturing through my manufacturing task force and the assistance we are providing industries like the car industry. We will never treat working people with the kind of contempt that is routine for the opposition. (Time expired)
Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's speech where it actually says that.
Leave not granted.
Native Title
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the longstanding Commonwealth offer to compensate states for the bulk of native title compensations, an arrangement which benefits our country and our Indigenous peoples. In particular, I refer to publicly available correspondence from then prime ministers Paul Keating and John Howard to the then WA Premier, Richard Court, committing to 75 per cent of the cost of native title settlements and compensation. I ask the Prime Minister: why are you now reneging on such an important longstanding and bipartisan arrangement?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:26): I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. What I would say to him is I learned of Premier Barnett's concern about this matter when I read it on the front page of one of our newspapers. I see Premier Barnett frequently. I am always available to speak to him should he want to speak to me and he has never raised this issue with me personally, not once. Should he choose to do so then, of course, I will have the discussion with him.
Economy
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:27): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of supporting jobs and economic growth and returning the budget to surplus?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:27): I thank the member for Capricornia for this question, because I think the government understands just how difficult the international economic environment is and you can see that in terms of the pictures that are coming out of Greece as I speak. But the fact is progress does need to be made in Europe and that progress needs to be made despite the fact that whatever happens there will be a very long and painful adjustment in that community. We do feel the impact of these global events particularly in Europe on our own economy and on our budget and we were upfront about that in our mid-year budget update. But here fortunately our economy is seven per cent larger than it was prior to the global financial crisis, because the government acted decisively to support jobs and growth. And, of course, we have seen something like 700,000 jobs created in this country since the government came to power. If those opposite had had their way, Australia would have gone into recession and we would have seen hundreds of thousands of Australians who were unemployed and we would have seen tens of thousands of small businesses hit the wall.
But our economic fundamentals here are strong. We have got solid growth, we have got low unemployment, we have got contained inflation, we have got strong public finances and we have got a record pipeline of investment. But our revenues have been hit by these events in Europe and around the world. We have lost something like $140 billion, ripped from government revenues because of global instability. And that would have happened to those opposite had they been in power during this period. And, of course, the budget went into deficit. If they had been here, because of their failure to act they would have seen even bigger deficits. But, given that our economy is now growing at trend, we are absolutely determined to bring our budget back to surplus in 2012-13. We are determined to bring it back and that we deliver it. We have seen over the past week or so the slapstick farce of those opposite as they have, one-by-one, walked away from their commitment to bring the budget back to surplus—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer is a serial offender concerning your exhortation to be directly relevant to the question asked. This could not possibly be directly relevant to the question and I ask you to bring the Treasurer back to the question.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will be the arbiter of what is directly relevant.
Mr SWAN: We are bringing the budget back to surplus. Those opposite have walked away from that commitment and we have found out why: because they have a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line put together by the three stooges over there.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Prime Minister with withdraw 'the three stooges'.
Mr SWAN: I withdraw—the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for finance and the shadow Treasurer. We have now found out why and how this $70 billion figure got into the public arena—the shadow Treasurer decided to play a trick on the other two stooges, a really difficult trick.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will withdraw.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on the issue of withdrawal, you asked the Treasurer to withdraw that same phrase last week. He has now used it twice in his answer to this question. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been required to leave the chamber. I would ask you to act against the Treasurer.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: I will not revisit my ruling with respect to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition leaving the chamber but if anyone cares to peruse the Hansard, the reason will be obvious. I have called on the Treasurer to withdraw that term and he has done so.
Opposition members: He did it again!
The SPEAKER: If the Treasurer used the term again, he will withdraw it.
Mr SWAN: Certainly, Mr Speaker, because we found out—
Opposition members: Withdraw!
Mr SWAN: I withdraw. We found out on the weekend from Laurie Oakes the type of trick that was played by the shadow Treasurer. (Time expired)
Budget
WYATT ROY (Longman) (14:32): My question is to the Treasurer. Given that Labor has never delivered a surplus in my lifetime and that in his time as Treasurer the government has delivered the four largest budget deficits in Australian history, will the Treasurer confirm that, based on forecast surpluses, I will be 110 years old before the debt he has created in just four years has been paid off?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:33): I thank the member for his question because here we have a typical example of what comes from the opposition on a daily basis. What we have is the opposition constantly talking down our economy.
Opposition members: No, that's you!
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation and noise in the chamber. The Treasurer will be heard in silence for the balance of this answer and that direction goes to honourable members on both sides.
Mr SWAN: Yes, Mr Speaker, the opposition is constantly talking down our economy by exaggerating the impact of public debt in this country, by repeatedly misrepresenting the budget bottom line.
Mr Hunt: So he'll only be 99!
The SPEAKER: The member for Flinders will leave the chamber under the provision of standing order 94a. I have said that the Treasurer will be heard in silence for the balance of his answer. The member for Flinders was interjecting. The same rule goes to anyone else in the chamber.
The member for Flinders then left the chamber.
Mr SWAN: When it comes to public debt, our position is the envy of the world. When it comes to the level of unemployment in this developed economy, our position is the envy of the world. When we look at the investment pipeline, our position is the envy of the world. When we look at our experience during the global financial crisis and the global recession, our position was the envy of the world. Those opposite are now in a shambles when it comes to fiscal policy. If they were in power, they would blow a $70 billion hole in our budget bottom line.
The level of public debt in this country is very low by international standards—less than one-tenth of major advanced economies. We are being held up as a perfect example of what to do by the International Monetary Fund, by the OECD and by the World Bank, yet the opposition come into this House day in, day out and talk down our economy. They know that our revenues have been written down by $140 billion. Despite all of that, because of the application of our very strict fiscal policy, we will be coming back to surplus in 2012-13.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SWAN: The reason they laugh like hyenas is that they know their position is a shambles—a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line before they make any other commitments to the people of Australia before the next election. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance spokesman simply cannot make their numbers add up. We have the farcical situation where the shadow Treasurer told Laurie Oakes that he is going to give a figure to the shadow cabinet and, depending which figure it is, he will know who is the leaker on the opposition front bench. I think we know today. He gave Moe over there the $50 billion figure but it was Curly over there he gave the $70 billion figure to. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How is the government keeping our economy strong and helping Australians make ends meet? Can the minister outline what other opinions have been put forward and how these would impact on working people?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:38): I would like to thank the member for his question. In his electorate, courtesy of this government's reform of superannuation, 31,000 of his constituents can expect to increase their superannuation entitlements from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
There are three ways in which this government is assisting Australians to deal with the future and making sure that people can make ends meet. The first way is by achieving a surplus, the second way is by supporting jobs and the third way is by having a view about the future and a positive plan for the future. We are achieving surplus. In the last budget—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I like getting a lecture from the other side about surplus—they have seven different positions on it! This lot opposite remind me of the bar scene out of Star Wars.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will be directly relevant to the question.
Mr SHORTEN: In the last budget we had $22.6 billion in savings, and we are engaging in the fastest fiscal consolidation on record—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Minister, resume your seat. Question time is an opportunity to hold the executive to account. Honourable members should listen to answers.
Mr SHORTEN: When you look at Australia's position compared to the rest of the world and you have a look at the Commonwealth net debt, you will see that we are doing far better. We are at 8.5 per cent. The Canadians are at 36 per cent. The Germans are at 57 per cent. The United Kingdom is at 77 per cent. Italy is at 100 per cent. Our net debt, courtesy of this budget and this government, is far lower than the debts of other nations.
But it is not just about the surplus; we are supporting jobs. That is why we have a manufacturing policy which stands up for the automotive industry.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Those opposite may laugh, but their policy is to buy a white flag and a European car. We are also standing up for apprenticeships—130,000 new places next year. We are also standing up for industry and jobs by using the mining tax to help provide a tax cut for small business. This is the contrast when we talk about supporting jobs. The difference between Labor and Liberal could be no starker or clearer than when it comes to the mining tax. We want to use the mining tax to lift people's retirement savings. We want to use the mining tax to help small business. They want to use the mining tax to give a multibillion dollar tax break to billionaires.
We are the ones who have a plan for the future. We are the ones who are putting forward the National Broadband Network. We are the ones who are investing in innovation. We are the ones who are investing in superannuation. Indeed, we are the ones who are willing to challenge the banks when we do not agree with what they are doing.
The member for North Sydney made some comments today. He accused the government of being out of touch with the banks' funding profiles. We on this side note that he is out of touch with the funding profiles of working families.
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement on 28 January that Mr Hodges was advised by the journalists at the Lobby restaurant that Mr Abbott that morning had made a statement in relation to the tent embassy in Canberra?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): I dealt with these matters earlier. My statements are all on the public record, and I refer the member to them.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:42): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. As it appears the Prime Minister has stood by the statement in that transcript, can the Prime Minister then explain why last Wednesday David Speers reported: 'Well, I did have Mr Hodges in the office here on the day that we are talking about before the protest had actually happened and he did refer to Tony Abbott's comments.' How was Mr Hodges briefing Mr Speers in the Sky studio before the protest on something the Prime Minister claims he did not yet know?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): In answer to the member's question I would say that I have dealt with these questions. I refer him to the statements that I have made. I say to the member who asked the question, as Prime Minister I am responsible for a lot but I am not sure I am responsible for David Speers's statements on Sky TV.
Infrastructure
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, how has the government delivered community infrastructure while supporting jobs in the national economy, and how has this been received?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:43): I thank the member for Reid for his question and his ongoing interest in the economy and jobs. We on this side of the House are determined to ensure that working families enjoy employment and that they enjoy the benefits that come from a job. That is why we acted in the global financial crisis.
One of the things we did was create the infrastructure employment program. Last Friday I was in the electorate of Wentworth at the opening of Rugby League Central, a great new five-star building on the SCG-SFS site, the construction of which created 443 jobs. Not just that but there will be ongoing economic benefit, with some 5,000 young people every year going through, getting access to training and facilities in an interactive relationship, encouraging them to participate in junior rugby league. Under the Indigenous Employment Program operating out of there, we saw the Indigenous All Stars game begin the rugby league season, as it does, engaging with Indigenous people, helping to close the gap not just in a cultural way but also in a very real economic way. I am asked how it has been received. I was amazed that the day after the opening the Leader of the Nationals described it as 'This is just one example of waste.' Those opposite presided over regional rorts, they had an ethanol plant which was never built, they had a cheese factory which went out of business and they had a railway line that burnt down. None of that happened under this government's program. More than 5,000 projects, all extremely positive, all creating jobs have been condemned by those opposite as 'just waste'.
Just yesterday I was with the member for Watson at the Back to Belmore game, the first Canterbury home game since 1998, creating not only jobs in the construction and redevelopment of Belmore Oval but also ongoing jobs—young people were selling hotdogs and pies, providing security and doing ongoing construction jobs. Indeed, as a result of our community infrastructure programs more than 700 sportsgrounds right around the country will benefit.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Riverina will remain silent for the balance of this answer.
Mr ALBANESE: It is good for jobs, good for employment, good for health outcomes and good for engagement in our community. It is all positive, dismissed by those opposite as 'just waste,' because they just do not get what real positive investment achieves, compared with what they did when they were in office.
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement of 28 January: 'At no point did Mr Hodges say to Ms Sattler that Mr Abbott had suggested that the tent embassy be torn down or removed in any way'?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:47): Yet again: I have dealt with these issues on the public record. The public record stands.
Economy
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. How is the government promoting jobs across Australian industry and what are the risks to the government's support?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation) (14:48): I thank the member for Makin for his question. It is a fact that Labor always puts jobs and economic growth as a priority in its economic policy settings. It must never be forgotten that Labor managed the economy to support jobs during the global financial crisis and, as a result, our economy is outperforming most industrialised economies. Since we came to office we have, in fact, created 750,000 jobs.
This government will continue to manage the economy, to deliver prosperity for all Australians. We have low unemployment, low debt, solid growth, moderate inflation and massive business investment. The government is focused on making the economic circumstances in the future good for business investment and boosting jobs. We are making record investments in skills, education and infrastructure. We are improving productivity, boosting savings, cutting the company tax rate and assisting small business. All of these elements will support jobs growth in the economy. But given the scaremongering by the opposition it is important to point out, mindful of some of the recent announcements, that it is always important not to be talking down the economy but to be pointing to some areas where we also have strong jobs creation in our economy.
Last week the job advertisement survey, which is published, and the NAB business survey showed an improvement in the employment outlook, with over 190,000 jobs being advertised each week. When the other side talks down the economy they conveniently ignore a number of very important jobs announcements that have been made by particular companies. What might they include? Woolworths plans to open dozens of new stores this year, which will create more than 10,000 jobs; the investment go-ahead that has been given for the Ichthys LNG project, which will create 4,000 jobs at its peak—four major projects in the Queensland LNG industry that have the potential to create 18,000 direct and indirect jobs; and GlaxoSmithKline's announcement earlier this month of a $60 million investment at its Boronia site, which will create 58 jobs.
You have here people on the other side who undermine confidence. They talk down the economy, they want to directly slash jobs, with their $70 billion in budget cuts. Those on that side want to put up company tax; on this side, we want to bring down company tax. We want to stimulate investment. Those on that side want to destroy the auto industry and destroy the steel industry; on this side, we support people's jobs. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to this statement that she made: 'At no point did Mr Hodges say to Ms Sattler that Mr Abbott had suggested that the tent embassy be torn down or removed in any way,' and also to this statement of Ms Sattler yesterday and repeated again this morning: 'Mr Hodges told me before the riot "Tony Abbott made a comment that the tent embassy should not exist anymore. It should be moved on." ' How does the Prime Minister explain the contradiction between her statement and Ms Sattler's?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:51): In answer to the member's question, he would be aware that, in this House, I have answered these questions before. I have referred to Ms Sattler's statements before. Indeed, I read two of her statements onto the public record. I would say to the opposition generally that of course we know what this is about. They have nothing to say about jobs—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. In three direct questions containing no argument the Prime Minister has been asked specific questions about her statements and I would ask you to direct her to be directly relevant to the question she was asked.
The SPEAKER: I invite the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was directly relevant to the question when I referred the member who asked the question to questions asked of me in this place last week, where I referred to statements by Kim Sattler and read them on to the Hansard. That is my answer.
As for the rest, this is a cheap attempt to distract from the fact that those opposite have no economic plan for jobs. They are in a complete muddle about a surplus—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question or resume her seat.
Ms GILLARD: they cannot defend their plans to take money off working people and small businesses and give it to big mining companies, and their carbon pricing plan is an expensive shambles. That is why this is—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat!
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:53): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask her how she expects the Australian people to have any confidence in a Prime Minister who refuses to answer questions about serious matters in this place?
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was quite clearly not a supplementary question. That was just rhetoric.
The SPEAKER: The supplementary question is ruled out of order.
Mr Pyne: On your ruling, Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: I will not revisit my ruling. I have ruled that proposed supplementary question out of order. Supplementary questions are asked at my discretion—
Mr Pyne: She refuses to answer the question.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Private Health Insurance
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek. Will the minister update the House on the government's plans to make the private health insurance rebate fairer for Australians?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:54): I thank the member for Fremantle for her very important question. Many Australians benefit at different times in their lives from benefits like the family tax benefit to help raise their kids, Austudy when they are studying and perhaps the age pension as they age. What these benefits have in common is that they are means tested so that the greatest benefit goes to the people who need them most.
The private health insurance rebate acts in exactly the opposite way. The greatest benefit goes to the people who need the least help. Take the example of a bank teller who is on $50,000 a year, a bank executive who is on $500,000 a year and the head of the bank who is on $5 million a year. They each get exactly the same rebate if they have the same private health insurance. What is even worse is that the people on the higher income are likely to have more expensive insurance, so they are going to get a greater benefit from taxpayers. If the teller cannot afford private health insurance on $50,000 a year then her tax dollars subsidise the private health insurance rebate of the person earning $500,000 and the person earning $5 million a year.
The total cost of this private health insurance rebate is about $5 billion a year, and if we do not make these modest changes that leave around 20 million Australians unaffected we will see the cost of this private health insurance rebate blow out by $100 billion over the next 40 years.
Mr Hockey: Forty years?
Ms PLIBERSEK: Yes, $100 billion over the next 40 years. Have a look at the Intergenerational report, Joe—you should have a look at it.
Other ministers have spoken about what is happening in Europe and what is happening in Greece and, concerned as we are about what is happening in Europe, and Greece in particular, there is a lesson to be drawn from what happens if governments are too timid to rein in runaway spending in areas like this. We need to make sure that every health dollar counts and that every health dollar matters, and we can spend those health dollars doing things like we are doing in the member for Fremantle's electorate, like creating more training places for nurses.
Mr Tehan: Mr Speaker, can I seek some clarification? My understanding is that this bill is before the House—
The SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr Tehan: Yes, a point of order.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Tehan: The point of order is that this bill is before the House and therefore cannot be debated currently.
The SPEAKER: I consider the anticipation rule to have had a lot of faults. The minister is being relevant and she has the call.
Ms PLIBERSEK: The sort of investment we can see is $1.4 billion in elective surgery, doing things like upgrading the keyhole surgery facilities at Manly Hospital, or doing things like putting $650 million into GP superclinics, as in the electorate of the member for Dickson, where patients have access to GPs, specialists, nurses, pathology, X-ray and ultrasound, physiotherapy, podiatry, dietician services, psychology, audiology, chiropractic services and Indigenous health services.
We have seen a lot of slip-sliding from those opposite. They will not commit to changing this if they come back to government. They will not commit to repealing the means testing because they cannot afford it. (Time expired)
Private Health Insurance
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's following statements, made when she was shadow minister for health: 'Labor is committed to the maintenance of the private health insurance rebate, and I have given an ironclad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.'
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson will repeat the question and he will be heard in complete silence.
Mr DUTTON: I will just wait for the clock to restart, Mr Speaker, if I may.
The SPEAKER: The clock will restart. When the House is completely silent the member will have the opportunity to ask his question so that the Prime Minister is able to hear what he is asking, and so that she is able to be directly relevant.
Mr DUTTON: I refer to the Prime Minister's following statements, made when she was shadow minister for health, 'Labor is committed to the maintenance of the private health insurance rebate, and I have given an ironclad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.' Further: 'I grow tired of saying this. Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.' When can the Australian people expect the Prime Minister to stand by any of her ironclad commitments?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): I thank the member for his question because it enables me to explain something he clearly has missed. There are elections in Australia generally once every three years. We had one in 2007 and we had one in 2010. I am surprised the member does not have any recollection of the 2010 election; it is the one where he was scrambling for a new seat. In that election we took to the Australian people a policy on private health insurance, and the legislation that is in this parliament reflects that policy which we took to the Australian people. Let us not have any of this absurdity from the opposition. We, in 2010, took to the Australian people a very simple proposition about fairness. We said with the growth in health costs and with the need to keep finding more money to meet the needs of health care in our nation as our population ages and as health treatments get more sophisticated—which is a great thing, but they also get more expensive—that we would need to make sure—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat as there is a point of order.
Dr Southcott: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: it relates to an area of the Prime Minister's responsibility. This was a promise at the 2007 election and Labor broke that in the 2009—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat and has almost gone out under 94(a).
Ms GILLARD: We went to the 2010 election saying that with these healthcare costs—as a simple proposition of fairness—someone who is earning $300,000 a year does not need a young apprentice, a worker in a shop or a worker in a factory to subsidise his or her health insurance.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence by members on both sides of the House.
Ms GILLARD: That is the fairness proposition we are bringing to this parliament. Those opposite are full of huff and puff now about private health insurance, but I wonder what is going to be their policy going to the 2013 election, because not one of them has said that they will put this private health insurance rebate back if this parliament changes it. Huff and puff now and then come the election, because they are in such a desperate fiscal mess with the incompetence of their economic team—they know they are $7 billion behind the starting line for surplus—
The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Dawson will remove himself under provisions of standing order 94(a).
The m ember for Dawson then left the chamber.
Ms GILLARD: They will give it a very big tick. If we want to go back to the 2007 election and compare the record, that is the one in which the Leader of the Opposition was campaigning on an emissions trading scheme and carbon price. Who is not telling the truth now?
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Because I have said that the Prime Minister would be heard in silence and the member did not observe my ruling in that respect.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on that ruling can I point out that there was a cacophony of noise coming from this side of the chamber to which the member for North Sydney was simply responding.
The member for North Sydney then left the chamber
The SPEAKER: I am not going to revisit that. If the member does not want to follow his colleague he will sit down. The member for Shortland has the call.
Economy
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Indigenous Reform. Minister, could you outline to the House how the government is building a strong economy to deliver for families?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (15:03): I thank the member for Shortland for her question and also for her advocacy for working families, which is certainly very much appreciated in her electorate. It is the case that this government will deliver a surplus so that we can continue to deliver for working families. We understand how important it is to make sure that we help families balance their household budgets. That is why this government said that we would increase support for childcare costs, and we have delivered it. It is why this government said we would help working families with the cost of education, and we have delivered it and we are now extending that assistance to help with the cost of school uniforms. It is why this government has decided and is delivering increased help for those families who have older teenagers—never done by those opposite, but delivered this year from 1 January to those families with teenagers aged between 16 and 19 years who are still at school. Those families are getting up to $4,200 extra a year as a result of this Labor government that is determined to help working families and make sure their children get a great education. And it was this Labor government that decided to introduce the country's first national Paid Parental Leave Scheme. It is this government that has made sure that families do not have to make difficult choice that they had to make under the previous government about whether or not they had to go back to work or could spend time with their newborn baby.
What we have seen from those opposite is, first of all, that they are not any longer determined to deliver a surplus. What we saw from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday is that he is still determined to spend $4.5 billion a year on his version of paid parental leave and at the same time whack a great big new tax on companies to pay for it. That is what this Leader of the Opposition is all about—whacking at a great big new tax on companies to find $4.5 billion, and not deliver a surplus. And while he is at it he is going to take money out of the pockets of pensioners and families to help cover the $7 billion black hole.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will be directly relevant. The call is now given to the honourable member for Gilmore.
Private Health Insurance
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her own statements with respect to the private health insurance rebate:
If I were minister for health in an elected government, it would be my duty to implement lock, stock and barrel … exactly what we had promised in the election campaign. That is your obligation.
And, 'When I make a commitment I actually intend to keep it.'
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no more changes to the means test for private health insurance under this government that she leads?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:07): The member for Gilmore is obviously referring to a statement made before the 2007 election. I suggest she refer to statements made before the 2010 election. If the member for Gilmore is saying that people in this parliament need to be judged against their 2007 statements, she was led into that election by then Prime Minister John Howard, who said:
A re-elected Coalition government will establish the world's most comprehensive emissions trading scheme in Australia, commencing no later than 2012. The scheme will be the primary mechanism for reducing Australia's emissions—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order relating to relevance: the Prime Minister was asked about her specific, ironclad guarantees. She was not asked about anybody else's statements. She can hardly be relevant unless she answers about her own promises to—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: My point is that, in 2012, the Liberal Party is on the run from John Howard. In 2012, the Liberal Party is stuck five years in the past. We are dealing with the circumstances of today. The circumstances of today require us, in the interests of fairness, to say to people who earn more money in our nation—$300,000, $350,000, $500,000, $1,000,000 a year—that they do not need their private health insurance subsidised by people who work part time, by people who work casually or by apprentices who earn $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year. That is what we stand for as a Labor government. That is what we brought to this parliament and that is what we are determined to get through.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): Mr Speaker, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately:
That this House calls on the Prime Minister to explain why she has broken yet another commitment to the Australian people when she said that Labor was committed to maintaining the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and in particular why:
(1) the Prime Minister is forcing six million customers to drop or downgrade their private health insurance cover by forcing up premium costs;
(2) in the face of rising cost of living pressures, the Prime Minister is adding over 10 per cent to the cost of premiums;
(3) the Prime Minister is not telling the truth when she says that this is about targeting rich people when half of all people with private health insurance earn less than $50,000 per year and over three million earn less than $35,000 per year;
(4) the Prime Minister is pretending that cuts to the private health insurance rebate will be good for the public health system when it will mean over 845,000 new procedures will be forced onto public hospital waiting lists that are already under pressure at a cost of $3.8 billion; and
(5) the Prime Minister is playing the class war card in a desperate attempt to fix Budget black holes brought about by waste and mismanagement.
Standing orders must be suspended because nothing is more important than securing the integrity of government and nothing is more important than protecting Australian families from yet another Gillard government rip-off. This is a government, and this is a Prime Minister, which has broken commitment after commitment, and now another commitment is going down the drain. This is why standing orders have to be suspended. We have had a string of them. We have had the broken promise to the member for Denison and we have had the broken promise on gay marriage. We have had, notoriously, the broken promise on the carbon tax and now we have—this is why standing orders must be suspended—the broken promise on private health insurance. The former Prime Minister wrote just before the 2007 election:
Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
This is why standing orders must be suspended. The former Minister for Health and Ageing, before the 2007 election, said on many occasions:
Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates.
This is why standing orders must be suspended. Finally, the Prime Minister herself has said:
Your correspondent should have no concern that Labor will erode—
mark that word—
or abolish the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance. Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate and I have given an ironclad guarantee of this on a number of occasions.
This is why standing orders need to be suspended. What is her excuse? Her excuse is, 'Oh, there was an election.' What she is trying to avoid is the fact that the government tried to break this commitment almost as soon as it was elected. This is why standing orders need to be suspended now.
In the last parliament there were some courageous Independents in the Senate who kept the government honest. I say—and this is why standing orders should be suspended—let the Independents in this parliament be just as honest as the Independents in the last parliament. That is the job of Independent members of parliament—to keep the government honest, not to allow the government to be dishonest. On the subject of Independents, I have a quote here describing the means testing of the private health insurance rebate as 'one of the most retrograde pieces of legislation that I have ever seen'. You might recognise that statement, Mr Speaker, because it is a statement of yours. This is why it is so important that standing orders should be suspended—so that the parliament can debate the importance of keeping governments honest and keeping families decently, not abusing them with yet another Gillard government rip-off. Standing orders ought to be suspended because the forgotten families of Australia have already suffered abundantly at the hands of this government. Look at the way prices have gone up since late 2007: power prices up 50 per cent, gas prices up 29 per cent, water prices up 46 per cent, health costs up 20 per cent, education costs up 24 per cent, rent 21 per cent, and we all know that interest rate rises under this government—and they are happening again—have added hundreds of dollars a month to the cost of mortgage repayments. And the carbon tax is coming. We all know the carbon tax is coming and that it will do such terrible damage to the families and industries of this country. And now yet another hit on the forgotten families of Australia. This is why standing orders must be suspended.
Two-and-a-half million people, who should have been able to believe this Prime Minister and this government, are to be ripped off. This parliament, and you included, Mr Speaker, has a heavy responsibility to keep this government honest. Every single member of this parliament has a responsibility to keep this government honest, to stop the 10 per cent rise in premiums that will take place if this goes through, to stop the hit on 3½ million people earning $35,000 a year or less, to stop the hit on the public hospital system that will have to do 845,000 more procedures as people abandon their private health insurance. It is a $3.8 billion hit on the public hospital system as a result of this Prime Minister's health tax.
This is why standing orders need to be suspended. We heard the Minister for Health in question time today talking about superclinics and nurses. Not a single dollar is going to be invested in the public health system as a result of this change. The reason why this government is slugging the families of Australia is that it will not tackle its own waste, because it is chronically incapable of tackling the waste, the mismanagement and the extravagance for which it has become a notorious byword. This is all about 'bodgying up' a surplus. That is what it is about. It is not about health. It is making up for the repeated waste, incompetence and dishonesty of this government. That is what it is all about.
What is at the heart of so much of what the government do? They hate people to succeed. That is why standing orders must be suspended. They hate success. They do not like people to succeed and, if people do succeed, they hit them. They hit them with the baby bonus means test that they promised was never going to happen but which happened. They hit them with the family tax benefit means test, which they said would never happen but which happened. They are hitting them, or about to hit them, with cuts to private schools. Mark my words; this is the next hit on the aspirational classes of Australia and it is coming like a steam train from this fundamentally dishonest and incompetent government.
Today—and this is why standing orders must be suspended—it is the private health insurance rebate promise that they are breaking. The politics of envy, the politics of the class war, belong back in the 1970s and the 1980s. Isn't it interesting that it should be trotted out again by this Prime Minister who, let's face it, when she is under pressure, goes back to her days as convenor of the Socialist Forum, the old Australian union of activists? She cannot help herself. That is what she comes out with whenever she is under pressure.
Make no mistake about this: this is just the beginning of the assault on private health insurance. This is just another foretaste of the assault on aspiration, of the assault on people who want to get ahead, that we will see from this government. This attack on the universality of the private health insurance rebate foreshadows—if the government's logic is to be believed—an attack on the universality of Medicare. That is what they will be calling 'middle class welfare' next. I predict that this Prime Minister will at some stage in the next few days come to the dispatch box and say, 'There will be no further changes to private health insurance under the government I lead.' She will be a liar if she says that. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (15:20): I second this motion. If anybody needed any reassurance that this government is built on a lie, then they should look no further than this latest betrayal of the Australian people. This government went to the 2007 election saying to the Australian people that under no circumstances would it introduce this change. In question time today, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health tried to say to us that somehow they sought a mandate in 2010 for this change of position. But have a look at the time line and you get an understanding of the depth of betrayal that this government has undertaken on the Australian people.
This is a government that in February 2009 said to the Australian people that this rebate was not going to be modified at all. That was before the 2010 election, Minister Plibersek. This was not a mandate that you sought at the 2010 election. You went with a lie to the Australian people in the 2007 election and you betrayed that by the time of February, March, April and May of 2009. This is a government that did not seek a mandate for a change of policy in 2010. We should put a stop to that lie and that latest betrayal right here and right now.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am uncomfortable with the use of the term 'lie'. The honourable member would assist the chair if he withdrew it.
Mr DUTTON: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Their record speaks for itself. This is a Prime Minister who, as we said in question time today, made a commitment to the Australian people that this change—this so-called reform—would not be introduced. This is a government which has tried to portray private health insurance in this country as some sort of playground for the rich. When you look at the facts, however, nothing could be further from the truth. We know that in this country almost half the population has private health insurance. We know that, of those people, about five million are on incomes of less than $50,000 per annum. We know that a million people who have private health insurance are on incomes of less than $25,000 per year. These are people who will be affected by these changes.
This government goes around—and of course you cannot rely on any figures that they put into the public debate—saying that, of the 11 million Australians who have private health insurance, about 30,000 will drop out as a result of this change. Does anybody believe for a moment, knowing the track record of this government, that those numbers will hold up? You are going to rip $2 billion—or $2.4 billion, depending on their estimates—out of private health insurance in this country and somehow only 30,000 out of the 11 million people with private health insurance are going to withdraw. It is an absolute nonsense and I do not think anybody should believe those figures.
The government's own insurer, Medibank, estimates that it alone will lose many thousands more than that figure of 30,000. HBF, the biggest provider in Western Australia, say that, just in WA, 208,000 people—or 23 per cent of their members—stand to lose all or part of their rebates. These people are not rich. These are people who are struggling with all of the cost-of-living pressures which have been heaped on them by the Labor government over the last four years. So, yes, this government has been coming into this place telling untruths about the figures—about how much impact there will be on the private health insurers and on those people with private health insurance in this country.
The other issue people need to be made aware of is that, when people flee private health insurance or when they downgrade their cover, those people are going to end up in the public system. We have a universal system in this country. People can turn up to a public hospital without charge to themselves—the taxpayer picks up the bill. Those people coming out of the private health system will put extra pressure on the public system. The people who are already waiting hours and hours in emergency departments right now will know that that situation is only going to get worse under this Prime Minister.
I do not think that this government can be believed about the impact of this change over the short term, let alone the longer term. I think that is why standing orders need to be suspended—because this Prime Minister needs to come into this place and explain to the Australian people why she misled them at the last election and why she has continued to mislead them every day since. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: I would remind the member, for next time, that he ought to more closely address the actual motion before the chair.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:25): The motion before the chair is yet again for a suspension of standing orders—the 38th time in the 43rd parliament that we have had question time disrupted in order to hear those opposite essentially have a dummy spit about the fact that they are still on that side of the House. Ever since August 2010 we have had the longest dummy spit in Australian political history.
We should not suspend standing orders to accommodate such a dummy spit. We have important business before the House. In total, more than 10 question times have now been lost as a result of these suspension motions. Time after time, those opposite have moved these suspension motions without building any case whatsoever. In this particular case, the PHI legislation is actually before the parliament. So what they are saying is, 'Suspend standing orders and stop the debate on private health insurance so we can have a debate on private health insurance.' How absurd. For that reason alone we should reject this motion to suspend standing orders.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about class war. This is a guy who has declared class war on working families on behalf of Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart. This is an opposition which comes in here day after day to defend the entrenchment of privilege rather than promote the enhancement of opportunity. Day after day, issue after issue, you can see it. It comes from their guts—and I will come back to that term later. In their guts, they defend the entrenchment of privilege—because it is all about who they are, where they have come from and where they want to stay. They have a born-to-rule attitude, which is why we see these dummy spits time after time—always defending the top end of town.
I am not surprised they want to suspend standing orders rather than have question time. No matter what issue you look at, they are out of touch. Look at the issue of the banks. The shadow Treasurer had an absolute shocker last week and I would have thought it had to get better this week. But today he said, 'If the banks are under funding pressures, if you look at their funding profiles and if you speak to people in markets, you can get a feel for what is happening.' That is what he is saying today. He is out there defending the banks for putting up their interest rates last Friday. Over the weekend he was complaining, but today we get the opposite.
That is the position that they have had. The shadow Treasurer, the shadow finance minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been all over the shop on all of these issues. And yet the Leader of the Opposition has the hide to come in here and speak about honesty and trust. Indeed the suspension motion they have moved here today would go to that. This is a guy who said, in a speech to the Sydney Institute:
One man's lie is another's judgment call.
That was his position on 5 June 2007. In September 2003, he told the Herald:
… there are some things the public has no particular right to know.
Of course we know that in May 2010 he said this:
… sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark. Which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.
That is what he had to say, in his own words—do not believe him unless it is written down, unless it is scripted.
There are some big debates before the nation—there is one about a return to surplus, and one about fairness and opportunity. Those opposite, who speak about truth, said during this debate that 3.5 million Australians earning under $35,000 a year would be impacted by the legislation before the House. They know that is not true.
The SPEAKER: Order! I counsel the Leader of the House that the question before the chair is that the motion be agreed to. I draw him back to the motion to suspend the standing and sessional orders.
Mr ALBANESE: Indeed, Mr Speaker—the reason we should not suspend standing orders is that in order to receive no support as result of these changes a single person has to earn above $124,000 a year and for a couple it is $248,000 a year. If we do not have a suspension of standing orders, we can get all those facts out there, with the scare campaign ending. Those opposite do not want members of this House to have an opportunity to debate these issues in full, in substance, because they always lose debates of substance. Those opposite are just reduced to saying no to absolutely everything—unless it is something to help the big end of town, in which case they say, 'Yes; how high can we jump?' That is the position they take.
We have a debate here about manufacturing. There were two or three questions about the economy today before those opposite got back in the gutter, which is the place they are most comfortable. The facts are that between 1996 and 2007, under the former government, manufacturing's share of GDP fell from 11.5 to 9.4 per cent—nearly a fifth. Its share of total employment declined from 12.8 to 9.9 per cent—from one in eight workers to less than one in 10 workers. They would have you believe that companies seeking to go offshore is a new phenomenon, but the former Prime Minister was happy to open the offshoring of Australian jobs. At the opening of BlueScope Steel in Vietnam, on 20 November 2006, he said it was a happy occasion, he hoped the company did well and hoped it made lots of money, paid taxes, as it would, repatriated money back to Australia and employed lots of Vietnamese people. That is what he had to say when he was opening a facility that would take jobs offshore from Australia.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will return to the substance of the motion.
Mr ALBANESE: Mr Speaker, those opposite want to suspend standing orders so they can have more yelling, more rhetoric—but not debate of issues of substance. They oppose absolutely everything, which is why they engage in this behaviour. Because of their $70 billion black hole, they will not even repeal the means test. They say we should suspend standing orders to debate these issues but they will not even regard the issue as significant enough to commit to repeal the changes that are in the legislation. They cannot, because if they did that the $70 billion black hole would just get bigger and bigger and bigger. That is why they are reduced to this negativity. That is why the opposition leader defined himself, when he became opposition leader, as follows:
The job of the opposition is to be an alternative, not an echo; to provide a choice, not a copy.
I thought to myself that that was a bit familiar. I know I have likened the Leader of the Opposition to Barry Goldwater, and Barry Goldwater said this when he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination:
I will offer a choice, not an echo.
That was on 3 January 1964. The Leader of the Opposition has modelled himself on Barry Goldwater, which is why 'In your guts, you know he's nuts' is so appropriate for this Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader will return to the motion under discussion.
Mr ALBANESE: Mr Speaker, he has modelled himself on Barry Goldwater because—
Mr Secker: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House should withdraw that comment. It is totally unparliamentary to refer to people with mental health problems like that.
The SPEAKER: Would the honourable member state what he considers unparliamentary?
Mr Secker: Using the term he has, about being nuts.
The SPEAKER: It would immensely assist the chair if the Leader would withdraw.
Mr ALBANESE: Mr Speaker, I was just quoting Democrat Barry Goldwater, who he has modelled himself on.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader will withdraw.
Mr ALBANESE: I am not sure what I am withdrawing, Mr Speaker, but in deference to you I will withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The Leader will withdraw absolutely, without the words 'in deference to you'.
Mr ALBANESE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The House divided. [15:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:46): 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 document:
Ministerial statement—Livestock trade to the Middle East—Senator Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 9 February 2012.
Debate adjourned.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:47): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ROBB: Yes, I do—most pathetically, Mr Speaker. Today the Treasurer, frothing at the mouth, made the accusation that I had leaked material from a coalition committee of which I am the deputy chairman. It is a total falsehood and the Treasurer should be asked to withdraw that accusation.
The SPEAKER: The honourable member has shown where he has been misrepresented.
BILLS
Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011
Reference to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:49): by leave—I move:
That the Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (15:49): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr CROOK: Yes, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr CROOK: Today in question time I asked a question of the Prime Minister regarding native title compensation. The Prime Minister stated that she had not heard from the Premier of Western Australia on this issue and for the record I would like say that the Prime Minister received a letter from the premier on 14 April 2011, which she subsequently replied to on 29 May.
The SPEAKER: The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. In a personal explanation he has to show where he personally has been misrepresented, but he has made his point.
DOCUMENTS
Access to Committee Documents
Presentation
BILLS
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (15:51): In continuing on from my remarks prior to question time, I note that this group of bills is another example of the government breaking its word given to the Australian people. I was talking before about some of the concerns we have locally about the pressures that are already on our existing health system and how these measures are going to make that situation worse. In the Courier-Mail last week there was an article about parents of children with ear, nose and throat problems and the concern that they are being told to consider paying for private treatment. This is despite living in one of the more disadvantaged areas of South-East Queensland. The article notes:
Doctors in Logan, south of Brisbane are at a loss to know where to refer children which have ear, nose and throat conditions for public treatment.
The article states that Logan Hospital, which is located in my electorate, has approximately 1,000 children waiting to be seen. What kind of a place are we creating for our children, particularly those from disadvantaged families who cannot afford private health insurance? And this legislation is not going to make that problem better. It is going to make it worse because it is going to push more people into the public sector. Private hospitals currently treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia. Medibank Private has predicted that some 37,000 members alone will drop their cover and 92,500 will downgrade. Over the next five years it is expected that approximately 1.6 million will drop cover and 4.3 million will downgrade. How is the public system, which is already severely strained, going to cope with the increased costs and pressure? At the end of the day, this becomes a blatant, cost-shifting exercise to transfer responsibility from the Commonwealth to the state public health systems.
The Queensland government has long been struggling to provide sufficient support for their health services, and shifting the responsibility onto the existing resources and staff will result in complete disarray and possibly even tragedy. We do not want to see in hospitals an increase in the incidence of people not getting proper treatment or being left in hallways as they wait for beds. These are all things which could possibly be made worse in light of the current proposed legislation. In addition, upward pressure on insurance premiums will force people to reduce their levels of cover.
For example, in an article in the Albert & Logan News, dated 6 October 2010, a mother was quoted because she had spent some nine hours in the emergency room at Logan Hospital after suffering a miscarriage. She was angry and frustrated that nobody had sought to provide her with any assistance during that time. More recently, there was the headline in the Sunday Mail 'Left lying in own blood, patient claims' about failure to get treatment at Logan Hospital. All in all these are current examples of a system under enormous pressure. That pressure is only going to be made worse by pushing people from the private sector into the public sector.
In this debate it is important to note that our doctors, our nurses and associated health workers are going to bear the brunt of people's frustration, angst and anger. Yet these are the very people who already seek to do such a wonderful job in our community. It is well known that they work long hours under constant pressure. We should be doing everything we can to ease those pressures, not make them worse.
The federal Labor government promised that we would not face this legislation but, as we have discussed numerous times, they have broken this promise again and again. This is the third time that this has been debated in this House. Labor always purport to seek to help the most disadvantaged and underprivileged, yet over time we see the reverse. Their very policies actually hurt those that are most disadvantaged and underprivileged, not help them. Given the cost of private health insurance if premiums go up, the many low-income earners who do have their own private health insurance will bear the burden of the increased premiums because of fewer people being insured privately. I would like to highlight this point by quoting from an email that was recently send to me by one of my constituents. The email reads:
We are very concerned about the proposed means testing of the private health rebate. As it is, the funds have all been regularly increasing their costs and causing us to wonder how much longer we can keep up the payments. Although we will not be immediately affected as our income is below the levels reported, we most certainly are aware that there will be a mass exodus from the funds which will force them to increase their costs further in order to compensate, this will have a further flow on effect and will force us out of private health insurance, to which we have contributed for 35 years.
We note that Labor promised not to touch the subsidy before the 2007 election and regard this as another broken promise.
The email went on to say that they found the government's plot to sell the changes to private health insurance, as stopping the poor from subsidising the rich, as both insulting and dishonest. The authors of this email went to the effort of making some comparisons to support their view, and I would like to note some of their observations, an area that I touched on earlier. If you are earning an income of about $30,000 per annum you are paying about $5,000 per annum in tax and Medicare levy. If you are earning about $60,000 a year, you are paying about $12½ thousand and if you are earning about $90,000 a year, you are paying about $22½ thousand. So you can see that as your income increases you are contributing significantly more to general taxation and also through the Medicare levy. When you have a look in detail at the argument that the poor are subsidising the rich, you see that does not hold any water. It is time this government's ideological bent, of saying that the rich need to pay more for this and more for that and that the poor and needy are suffering, was put away. The politics of envy does no good as to the future of this nation whatsoever. We in the opposition oppose these measures for very good reasons, as I have outlined. Whilst the government seeks to promote this as a win-win solution, I see it as nothing more than a lose-lose one for the individuals and families living in my electorate and those around the country. We oppose this legislation.
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (15:59): I speak in support of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011. Together, these bills will proportionally lower the private health insurance rebate for those in higher income tiers and increase the Medicare levy surcharge for those on higher incomes who elect not to purchase private health insurance. Through these measures, the government is seeking to rebalance a range of policies supporting the private health insurance industry, as promised and taken to the 2010 election—a fact that many people in this chamber just recently have chosen to neglect. These new means-testing arrangements will make the private health insurance rebate fairer.
At the moment, more than 45 per cent of the Australian population is covered by some form of private hospital cover. This figure is at a 10-year high. In total, over 10.4 million Australians have private health insurance. Currently, consumers who purchase private health insurance receive a 30 per cent government rebate on the cost of the premium. This is not means tested. Those aged over 65 receive a 35 per cent rebate on their private health insurance costs and those over 70 receive a 40 per cent rebate. These rebates were introduced under the Howard Liberal government and the expenditure on the rebate has grown substantially over the last decade. In 2001-02, government expenditure on the private insurance rebate totalled $2.1 billion. In the 2010-11 financial year, the total expenditure on this rebate had increased to $4.7 billion. That is more than double the amount from 2001-02.
The 2010 Intergenerational report published on the Department of the Treasury website on 1 February that year states that the private health insurance rebate is the fastest-growing component of the Australian government's health expenditure and is forecast to increase by over 50 per cent in real terms per person over the period 2012-13 to 2022-23. The private health insurance rebate is the fastest-growing element of health expenditure and, if not capped, will cost the taxpayer $100 billion over the next 40 years. The fact that the fastest-growing element of health expenditure is not infrastructure, primary health care or pharmaceuticals but is the subsidising of private health insurance shows why these bills are so important.
In the 2009-10 budget, the government announced it would introduce measures to limit the growing cost of the private health insurance rebate. We tried twice to implement changes to the rebate during the last parliament, but the legislation was rejected both times by the Senate.
These bills create three tiers of support for private health insurance based progressively on the annual income of an individual or a family. For singles, there is no change unless a person earns over $83,000 per annum. Once they go over that, then the rebate reduces from 30 to 20 per cent. Going further up the income scale, once a single person earns over $96,000 per year, there is still a rebate, but it is reduced to 10 per cent. Once they get to $129,000 per year, the rebate cuts out.
For families and couples, the bills propose that the cut-off amounts be doubled. Therefore, following that figure, the rebate for a family or couple is 20 per cent once their combined income exceeds $166,000 per year. Once that couple or family receives an income of more than $192,000 per year taxable income, the rebate is 10 per cent. There is no rebate beyond $258,000 annual taxable income. If there are children involved, then there is an extra $1500 in the threshold for each tier per child. For example, a family with two dependent children would have to earn a combined taxable income of over $169,000 before they lost the rebate. There is no change to the private health insurance rebate for those individuals earning below $83,000 as singles or $169,000 for two-child families. They retain the full rebate.
Nearly eight million policyholders will retain the full rebate on private health insurance. The important figure to remember, I think, in this debate is that nine out of 10 Australians will not be affected at all. With the average yearly wage for 2011-12 trending to around $68,790, the average wage earner will not be affected by these changes. Those opposite are suggesting that an administration assistant, an apprentice, a retail worker and maybe a teacher not only in my electorate of Deakin but right across the country should be subsidising those who have substantially more income than themselves.
I believe the current expenditure on the private health insurance rebate can and should be better allocated to other ways of supporting our health system. The big problem with private health insurance rebates is that this money, rather than being spent in our hospitals for everyone, goes into the pockets of consumers or purchasers of health insurance to subsidise that product. I think it is an inefficient way of supporting our health system.
The other problem with the rebate is that the more that is spent on private health insurance the bigger the subsidy received. So this rebate gives the biggest benefit to those on the highest incomes rather than the money being delivered directly to the health system. The rebate gives more money to those who are well off and less to those who take out basic policies.
Recent data shows that 45 per cent of the population have private health insurance, but this figure is higher for higher income households—for example, 91.3 per cent of couples earning between $240,000 and $300,000 a year have private health insurance. Those on low incomes have lower rates of health insurance—for example, only 25.6 per cent of singles earning less than $50,000 take out private health insurance. Proportionately more of this rebate, which is now costing $4.7 billion a year, is being paid to higher income households. The question that I have to ask—and I have asked it in this chamber before—is: 'Is welfare for the wealthy a good use of health funding dollars?' My answer is I do not think so. The other impact of this legislation is to increase the Medicare levy surcharge, increasing the penalty for those on higher incomes not taking out private health insurance. When the government lifted income thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge in 2008 in order to apply indexation, the Liberal Party and the private health insurance industry ran around like headless chooks, warning that thousands of people would abandon their private cover. They said it would increase the number of people not purchasing private health insurance. They said it would increase demand for public hospital services as well as push up premiums for private health insurance. But these arguments have been proven wrong.
I remember speaking on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill of 2008 in the last parliament and making the point that people should take out private health insurance if the product and service is good and relevant to the individual's or family's circumstances. As I have said, time has passed and the evidence is now in. A report by KPMG conducted after the introduction of the higher Medicare levy surcharge found that private hospital activity following the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge actually grew at a faster rate than public hospital activity, which also grew.
The facts are there. The current percentage of those taking out private health insurance is at a 10-year high. Treasury modelling estimates 99.7 per cent of people will keep their private health cover, with only about 27,000 people dropping out because of these proposed changes. This would lead to an increase of approximately 8,500 additional public hospital admissions over two years, which is an increase of around 0.1 per cent. This is a very small number indeed and is nothing like the fearmongering predictions that we hear so often from those opposite. These bills will reduce government subsidies for high-income earners and increase the penalty if they opt not to take out insurance. This ensures that most, but not all, high-income earners will still opt to stay in. Indexation will ensure that, over time, the tiers are raised as national incomes rise.
It is important to note that nearly eight million policy holders will not feel any difference at all. There will be no effect on the cost of hospital or general treatment policies because well over 99 per cent of people who have cover will retain their cover. Treasury analysis advises that the combination of reducing the subsidy while increasing the Medicare levy for those on higher incomes will ensure that policyholders retain their private health insurance. The Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association said that it:
… supports changes to the Medicare levy surcharge and private health insurance (PHI) rebates based on income. The Association has, for many years, known that the PHI rebate is not an effective mechanism to attract and retain members in the health funds. Not only is the mechanism itself ineffective, it is also an extremely inefficient use of taxpayer dollars …
These bills will help Australia get the best value for its health dollar as there is an urgent need to manage this rebate, which is the fastest growing health cost in the nation. I commend these bills to the House.
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (16:10): You have got to hand it to the Labor Party. There seems to be no end to their creativity in spinning a good yarn. This bill seeks to cut $2.8 billion in private health subsidies, inevitably forcing more people onto the already strained public hospital waiting lists. And they title their bill the 'Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill', surely an oxymoron. Cutting health insurance rebates can only result in forcing more people onto the Medicare levy, resulting in longer hospital queues in Nowra and Milton hospitals. It is the only logical conclusion to draw. Private industry warned against this when Labor first tried to raise the subject under their former leader a couple of years ago. For example, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons on 12 May 2009 said the budget measure which cut rebates would 'inevitably drive some Australians out of the private health system, placing even greater strain on Australia's public hospitals'. The Australian Medical Association, on the same day, said:
… if you don't keep your private health insurance, you'll be slugged with an increased Medicare Levy surcharge. They get you both ways.
I could not agree more, and this bill confirms exactly what the two major medical associations were warning us about.
This government has never been a fan of private health insurance, despite the success in easing the pressure off the perpetually struggling public hospital system. This bill is just the latest step in Labor's campaign of dogma. Certainly no lessons were learned through its previous experience in 2009 or through industry advice saying, 'Don't do it,' or, most importantly of all, the chaotic health and hospital systems, which we are still experiencing.
When I was reading the explanatory memorandum to the bill, I could not help thinking that the $1.7 billion in cost overruns and waste remediation for the pink batts fiasco could have paid for the subsidy cuts the government is now proposing. When you add the other amounts that have been wasted, there should have been no need to go down this path at all. No wonder Australians, especially in Gilmore, are angry. They cannot see the justification for this to happen. The government has shown no remorse for generating so much waste through its own incompetence, yet it has no hesitation in slugging the taxpayer when it wants. Gilmore has one of the lowest socioeconomic demographics in Australia and I am astounded the government continues to deny the impact this policy will have on the public hospital system in regions like Gilmore. Many families make significant sacrifices so they can take out private health cover, yet here we are again, under this government, penalising those who would benefit most. There is no gain to be had, only pain.
Then, as if to compound this stupidity, the government want to impose another tax by increasing the Medicare levy on some of the soon-to-be-disenfranchised health insurance subscribers. This latest variation will see a three-tier system of subsidies, starting at $80,000-odd per annum for a single subscriber. The first tier get a 10 per cent cut to their subsidy and their Medicare levy will not go up—at least, not yet. The next tier get a 20 per cent cut but their levy goes up. The third tier get no subsidy and their levy goes up even more. Any incentive is deleted.
I note that Treasury estimates that around 25,000 individuals are predicted to opt out, and in some circles that appears to be a conservative guess. In the Senate hearing earlier this year, Medibank Private admitted no research was done as to the likely impact, but they did some internal modelling. That is another way of saying 'an educated guess'. The upshot is that the government does not really know what the impact will be but is keeping its fingers crossed. I have no doubt that this will be just the tip of the iceberg as other cost pressures encouraged by the government start to sink in. With unemployment predicted to rise by another 100,000 in the next 12 months and daily living expenses just going through the roof, it does not take a genius to predict that many households will be cutting a lot of their spending. In fact, they already have, with cost-of-living pressures and, still to come, the carbon tax. This latest venture will only add to that pressure. So, in a way, Labor will get its wish to destroy private health insurance, not through careful planning but through a combination of incompetence, ineptitude and dogma.
But this latest move by the government is hardly a surprise. They were opposed to the scheme when the coalition introduced it and, with the Greens calling the shots, they are determined to remove it completely. I am amused by the inclusion of the word 'fairer' in the title of the bill. This is not a recent innovation, because they tried this on with their Fair Work Act, which is anything but fair. I think that has been demonstrated well and truly. Perhaps they will now turn to their latest slogan: 'a painful adjustment.'
Next, instead of eradicating the subsidy in one fell swoop, as they said they would, this is going to be the death of a thousand cuts. Nobody should be under the illusion that this bill tells us where it will stop; it is just the next step in a series of steps, because the government have not recanted their determination to get rid of this scheme. It might just take a little longer.
I recall a press release issued by the former Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, on 26 September 2007, when she was occupying the shadow portfolio. I seek leave to table the press release.
Leave not granted.
Mrs GASH: I am not surprised leave has not been granted, because this press release actually states the truth. The shadow minister was unequivocal in her assurances. In fact, it was a promise. In part, this is what she said:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
… Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge and other components of the existing private health insurance incentive scheme.
It is now abundantly clear that the words were carefully crafted. The shadow minister did not say that they would not change the qualifying criteria, which they are now attempting to do—another broken promise. It seems to me that Labor, to quote Nicola Roxon's own words from the very same press release, will do anything and say anything to get elected. They were not going to cut the private health insurance rebates—at least, that is what they tried to imply. That was before they were elected. Now Labor have been elected, $2.8 billion worth of cuts are going to be made—another lie, another broken promise.
If that is not enough, in a letter to Dr Michael Armitage, the Chief Executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association, the then federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, in a letter dated 20 November 2007, wrote:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases.
I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that this statement came from the former Labor leader, Mr Rudd.
By their words, they stand condemned. What utter deceit. The government cannot be trusted to tell the truth and they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. And they certainly cannot be relied upon to get things right. The more the Prime Minister talks about going forward, the more we are slipping backwards.
According to a report in the Australian Financial Review, dated Wednesday, 17 August last year, the Private Health Insurance Administration Council showed that Australia had reached its highest rate of private hospital insurance participation in more than 10 years: in the three months to June 2011, 87,381 people signed up for private health cover. That is what the rebate sought to do when it was introduced. It was an incentive to reduce reliance on the public hospital system by encouraging people to take out private health insurance. It has been an outstanding success, yet this government wants to sabotage that success and trap us in a public hospital system that is groaning under demands that are not being met.
Labor's promise to take over the hospital system has fallen by the wayside and has been diluted to an agreement to share funding—and then only for future growth. How will that work? Another broken promise, but I think it is more a case of Labor confusing their ambitions with their capabilities. This has been the recent pattern of the Prime Minister, making sugary promises on the run and not following through. How many so-called policy announcements have languished after the initial press statement? Making a shallow statement, disguised as a policy announcement is easy. Labor have done it hundreds of times. The challenge for Labor is following through, and that is where they have been found wanting.
Deloitte released a report titled Economic impact assessment of the proposed reforms to private health insurance. I wonder whether the word 'reforms' accurately describes what this government is trying to do, because this proposal is a retrograde step. Deloitte describes the reaction to these proposed changes as significant, not in a good way but with a negative consequence. This is what Deloitte concluded:
In time, it is expected that the cost of servicing increased demand for public hospital services will outweigh the savings to government from the means testing of the rebate.
On this basis, how can anyone in their right mind support this legislation? And that statement comes from an independent and credible body, external to the political process.
I am not surprised that the Independents have indicated their reluctance to support the changes, as has been reported in the Fin Review. At the back of all this, I have to wonder about this strategy to force people back into public hospitals being pursued at the same time as the government is building superclinics to ease the existing strain on public hospitals. Is it in fact a sly ploy to get people into the yet-to-be-constructed superclinics? And what of the government's plan to ease the demand on public hospital waiting lists by utilising private hospitals? How is this going to work?
This legislation has to be viewed in the context of the health reform announcement, made on 2 August last year. Key changes will not be implemented until at least 2014-15, seven years after Labor first promised to fix public hospitals. They also promised that, if needed, they would hold a referendum to take them over. The core promise of Labor's health reforms was that the Commonwealth would become the dominant funder of 60 per cent of hospital costs. That promise has since been scrapped. Its substitute, the supposed increase to 50 per cent growth funding of hospital services will not occur until 2017. That is at least two elections away and with no explanation as to how it is to be funded. A definition of an efficient price of hospital services has yet to be determined, and further negotiations may even be required on the scope of services eligible for Commonwealth funding.
Kevin Rudd said that, on health, the buck would stop with him. Julia Gillard says that the states will be in charge. Julia Gillard has broken Labor's promise on elective surgery guarantees. Patients in category 1 who had waited the clinically recommended time were promised that they would have their surgery in five days. Patients in category 2 would have surgery in 15 days and patients in category 3 would have surgery in 45 days. What are the chances?
The new national elective surgery targets will not be fully implemented until 2016, with reward funding now paid in advance to state governments and no guarantees for patients. The national emergency access target for patients to be admitted or discharged within four hours has been watered down from 95 per cent of emergency department patients to 90 per cent, and will not be fully implemented until 2015. Labor will spend hundreds of millions of dollars this year establishing the National Health Performance Authority, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, Medicare Locals and the National Funding Authority. None of this is good news for Gilmore. The superclinic in Shoalhaven, promised by Labor to be up and running by Christmas last year, is not due to commence for perhaps another two years, and even that has a revised forecast that is optimistic. Shoalhaven Hospital is struggling and Milton-Ulladulla Hospital is virtually a second-level operation where some of the services have been cut.
This legislation is a square peg in a round hole. It is a retrograde step. It breaks more promises and it will only compound an already difficult situation. It is not something we need and it is certainly not something we deserve. I cannot for the life of me see any sense in this, and I can see even less in a government that is determined to have its own way despite the cost to the community. I do not support this legislation and I do not trust a government with a proven track record of cunning, deceit and rank stupidity. The Australian people deserve better.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:24): In my remarks today on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 it is my intention to talk a little bit about the historical context in which we find ourselves, particularly with regard to matters of promises, which many other speakers have talked about, and health reform, even though I would say that this bill has nothing at all to do with health reform; this is the budgetary bill.
When we think back to the 2007 election campaign—and I think almost all members in the chamber fought that election campaign—we remember clearly what took place. Some of the things that the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—whether that title will apply to him again in the next few weeks I do not know—talked about was the end of the blame game, how there was going to be resolution of the conflict between the states and the Commonwealth, how everybody would start to get along better, how there would be great strides forward on health care and how, as was promised, if there was no resolution then there would be a Commonwealth takeover of public hospitals. That was very much part of the 2007 campaign, and it obviously gave the current government and the former prime minister a great deal of momentum. When you go to the front door of anyone's house and say, generically, 'What are your issues?' the default issues are without doubt health and education. Everyone says, 'Let's fix the health system.' So when that imagery was created by the Labor Party before the 2007 election—ending the blame game and fixing up the health system—everybody wanted to believe it, and I think it worked very well for Labor.
Within that context, an aspect of that campaign was the then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd—now former Prime Minister and current foreign minister—using a 'younger John Howard' image. As part of that, Mr Rudd and his then shadow health minister, Julia Gillard, were very careful in their addressing of concerns within the health industry and the private health industry. That leads us, as others have alluded, to the letter written by the former federal Labor leader and member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, dated 20 November 2007, just shortly before the election. In this letter he was very clear on the matter of retaining the existing private health insurance rebate.
We talked in that election campaign about the fact that Labor was out to get the private health insurance rebate. They were going to make changes to it and we knew the consequences of that. At the time the Howard government was elected in 1996, we were in the situation where the proportion of Australians that were a part of the private health system was down to something like 33 or 34 per cent. Through the measures the Howard government put together that was elevated to something like 45 per cent, which took pressure off the public hospital system. In Cowan, some 75 per cent of residents in my electorate are covered under the private health insurance arrangements.
However, as I said, it was very clear that the image, the claim or, you might say, the promise that was put out there by Labor before that 2007 election campaign was that there would be no change. As a result the private health industry was fairly quiet on the matter and it did not choose to highlight any further concerns to the people of Australia, and that was another aspect that helped the Labor Party win government in 2007. This matter was addressed quite significantly in question time today, and the point was made by the current Prime Minister that the promises that were made about the private health insurance rebate were pre-2007 election, the point being that promise was made two elections ago. I note as well that the member for Dickson very clearly made the point when we approached the 2010 campaign that comments were on the record which indicated to Australians that there would be no changes to the arrangements for the private health insurance rebate. So the reality is—and I will move further into this bill soon—that the view and the perspective that was given to the Australian people was that their health insurance rebate was not going to be touched. How truly wrong that was.
It is important for me to say that the former minister for health is on the record as saying:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor—
this was before the 2007 election—
has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
As I have said, the letter from the Hon. Kevin Rudd to the Chief Executive Officer of the Health Insurance Association, Dr Michael Armitage, again very clearly states that federal Labor was committed to the private health insurance rebates. Unfortunately, as is so often the case in the last four-plus years, what is promised before an election bears little relationship to what takes place after the election. Yet we cannot blame the Greens for any of this of course! The socialist to communist fringe of Australian politics have always been complete and utter socialists. Their view of the world is that anyone who has done well in their life must only have done so due to the sweat of somebody else. So they are fully behind the redistribution of wealth and there are plenty in the government who probably subscribe to a similar view.
When we look at private health insurance circumstances we know that there are 10.2 million Australians who currently have private health insurance for hospital treatment. As I said before, 75 per cent of my electorate of Cowan—some 95,000 voters, citizens over 18, and their families—all believe that they want to make sacrifices in their lives in order to be able to afford private health insurance so that they will have choice in the future. A lot of people might say, and obviously it is also the government's view, that anyone on more than $80,000 a year and any family on more than $180,000 a year must be wealthy. But that is not the whole story, and I will go through that a little bit further. It is certainly the case that 75 per cent of my constituents are within the private health insurance arrangements. In fact, back in August last year we received letters from almost 2,000 of our local residents asking for the retention of the current private health insurance rebate. Residents such as Ken Roberts, Sarah Harris, Lee Davis and Barbara Brown, to name four of those almost 2,000, simply cannot understand why the Labor government is out to cut the private health insurance rebate. They see it as an attack on the hard-working and aspirational people of this country.
In just the last day or so I received an email from my constituent Mark Paulton. I will read into the record what he says:
We are a modest family of 3 with an income just over a gross income of around 180k pa. This is modest really when in context of Perth and the mining boom as you can appreciate.
Since labour have been in power I have seen appreciation for the working family dwindle and really encouragement now goes to those who aren't striving to better their income levels and raise themselves without support of the state. For example here are things that labour has introduced that has directly affected me and my family due this government thinking that a family earning over $150,000 is classed as a millionaire in their view:
1. Means testing of a family Tax Benefit A and B, Child Care Benefit and Baby Bonus … Loss of around $3500 pa
2. Flood Levy introduced … $1000
3. Means Test of Rudds stimulus package so not applicable to our income level … $1000
4. Carbon Tax Introduced $2500pa
5. No change to recent income tax threshold in line with inflation … $1000pa
6. Changes to Medicare and Obstricians fees for using their services … $2500
And now
… The loss and means test of the PHI rebate …$1000pa.
Consideration of not just the PHI rebate means test, it should be considered with all the other changes this government has done and this extra change not only is a burden in its own right, it's compounded by the fact that one has been levied on just purely because we are perceived to be millionaires. The total of the above is around $12,500 in changes that makes us worse off since labour came to office.
Is it any wonder that retailers are feeling it tough as well.
When you have 75 per cent of the people in Cowan concerned about this sort of issue, is it any wonder then that so many people in my electorate are concerned? When Deloittes did the analysis on the impact of the legislation it showed that they expected 175,000 people to withdraw from private hospital cover and a further 583,000 to downgrade their cover. The AMA shares that sort of viewpoint as well. The health insurance sector predicts that another 730,000 are likely to downgrade their hospital cover and 775,000 are likely to drop from ancillary altogether. Even the government's own Medibank Private has estimated that 37,000 of their members alone will drop their cover and 92,500 will downgrade their cover. That is thousands more than the government estimates will abandon private health insurance due to this bill—due to these measures that the government is trying to introduce today. One private insurance company is saying that they alone will lose more people to private health insurance than the government estimates will happen across the whole country. I ask everyone in this place: who do they think is accurate on these matters?
One of the specific points that has been made about private health insurance and these plans to take the rebate away from so many people relates to the pool base for private health insurance. The reality is that with each person that drops out of private health insurance the pool base gets smaller and smaller. Even if Medibank Private is the only insurer that loses people—which is not necessarily going to be the case—37,000 people will no longer be part of that pool base. All those people that the government claims it is trying to protect will also see their insurance premiums rise as the health insurance companies will have to try to make ends meet whilst continuing to provide services from a reduced number of insurance policyholders.
This legislation does represent a huge knock for those hardworking Australians who want to share the cost of the provision of their own health services—those people who believe that society does not owe them and that they should pay their own way where they can. They are just asking for that little bit of help so that they can take pressure off the public hospital system. I do not think it is too much to ask, particularly for those that pay the majority of the income tax in this country, that they should get that little bit of support. These are people that have been making sure that they are doing the right thing for this country as well as looking after themselves first and foremost and it is not wrong for them to get just that little bit of support. We reject this bill, we reject the premise behind it and we call on the government to get its act together and balance the budget in the right way by cutting its spending. (Time expired)
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (16:39): I rise to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and the two cognate bills that are before the House. This is not the first time that these bills have been seen in this place. The same set of bills has been defeated by the Senate on two separate occasions, but this Labor government is now at it again for a third time. This of course is no surprise: if we have learnt one thing about the Labor government it is that it will never let a little thing like a mandate, or the will of the people, get in the way of it fulfilling its own agenda.
These bills aim to reduce the incentives for Australians to take up private health insurance by slashing the 30 per cent rebate and increasing the Medicare levy surcharge for those without insurance, according to income thresholds. Those earning over $80,001 will have to either receive a reduced rate of 20 per cent or pay a one per cent Medicare levy surcharge. People earning over $93,001 will either receive a rebate of just 10 per cent or pay a 1.25 per cent surcharge, whilst those who earn over $124,001 will no longer receive any private health insurance rebate and will face a Medicare levy surcharge of 1.5 per cent.
This government has selective amnesia when it comes to this issue. In 2007, then Leader of the Opposition Rudd gave assurances to the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Health Insurance Association, the Hon. Michael Armitage, that federal Labor would not make any changes to the private health insurance rebate.
A young professional in the seat of Macquarie earning $95,000 per year with a $1,500 per annum health insurance policy will see his rebate slashed from 30 per cent to 10 per cent or in real dollar terms from about $450 to $150. That equates to this person being $300 a year worse off. If they do not have private health insurance, their Medicare levy surcharge will rise from $950 to $1,187.50 and they will be $237.50 a year worse off. Put simply, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. This is another example of Labor trying to hurt everyday Australians—young families, senior citizens and small business owners who are already struggling to make ends meet as the cost of electricity and other vital items continues to rise. If passed, these bills will add to the ever-increasing cost-of-living burden being felt by people across the electorate of Macquarie.
When in government the coalition implemented incentives which saw a 10 per cent increase in the number of Australians who use private health insurance. Thanks to these incentives we now see around 45 per cent of Australians using one form or another of private health cover. Increased patronage of private health insurance is a vital part of ensuring greater access to health services for everyone.
Public hospitals all over the nation struggle to keep up with the demand. This is not a reflection on the hardworking doctors and nurses who work in public hospitals and are valued members of our community but a reflection on the demand that is currently placed on our health system. Private health insurance assists public hospitals by giving those who can afford it the opportunity to receive private care, which assists by easing pressure on hospital waiting lists. Reducing the rebate will increase the cost burden of private health insurance on mums, dads and self-funded retirees who are already struggling with price hikes. This will leave many with no choice but to drop their private health insurance altogether, whilst forcing others to downgrade to cheaper policies. This was highlighted by a telephone survey conducted by ANOP Research. They found that, if this bill was passed, 11 per cent of those surveyed would drop their hospital cover and a further 24 per cent would downgrade it. This would not only provide them with less cover but in turn place a great deal of pressure on our public hospitals and other health services.
The government's own figures show that around 27,000 people would be forced to drop their private health cover. This would result in an extra 8,500 public hospital admissions, as those previously covered by private health insurance returned to the public hospital system. These figures tell us that the Labor government fails to understand the impact that this bill will have on these 27,000 individuals across the nation—families, students and self-funded retirees who through no fault of their own will be worse off. During Senate estimates hearings, the leading insurer Medibank Private said that according to its own internal modelling about 37,000 of its members would be expected to drop their cover with an additional 92,000 expected to downgrade their policies if this bill were to pass. Medibank's figures suggest that under this bill 10,000 more Australians will be forced to drop private health insurance than the government has suggested. However, Medibank is talking about only their customer base, whilst the government is talking about the entire nation.
To see how the government's national figures stack up, look at the Deloitte report entitled Economic impact assessment of the proposed reforms to private health insurance, commissioned by the Australian Health Insurance Association. This report estimates that, over the first year, 175,000 people will drop their private health insurance and 538,000 people will have to downgrade their policies. We have the government saying 27,000 and a report by Deloitte claiming 175,000. So who can we trust? Who is more believable? The government that brought us the pink batts disaster, the 'building the entertainment revolution' through the set-top box scheme, the ludicrous cash-for-clunkers idea and, for an encore, wants to bring in a carbon tax? Or a company like Deloitte which, since its foundation in 1845 has been regarded as one of the world's largest companies when it comes to professional services?
The Deloitte report also found that this bill, which has been rejected twice by the Senate over five years, will cause the number of those dropping their cover to increase to 1.6 million consumers, while a further 4.3 million will downgrade their policies. Additionally, 2.8 million Australians would drop their general cover, which includes ancillary services such as dental. It found that because of this severe impact on the health insurance market, private health insurance premiums would rise significantly. The rise would be a staggering 10 per cent more than would otherwise be expected, making private health insurance even more unaffordable for those struggling against surging cost-of-living pressures. The report went on to show that this would have a significant impact on the public health system, with public hospitals having to treat a significantly higher number of patients as people withdrew from private health cover.
We need to be very clear about this. What the Labor government is proposing here is bad health policy. This government has a long record of failing to understand what the public wants, and this policy shows that nothing has changed. The impact that this proposal will have on the residents of Macquarie is significant. An average family in which the father works as an accountant and the mother as a schoolteacher, earning wages above the threshold, with a basic private health package costing $2,500 a year, will see their rebate reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, costing them an extra $250 a year. This is at a time when cost-of-living pressures are high and many among us are calling out for greater access to health services.
By bringing the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and the two related bills back before the parliament, this Labor government is once again showing that it is not listening to what Australians are saying. In both May and November of 2009 the parliament clearly told Labor that we did not want it destroying our health system. We must now again say that in 2012 nothing has changed. This bill needs to be opposed. The last thing we need is more hurt from this Labor government.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (16:48): I rise today to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and related bills—the government's latest broken promise and latest attack on aspirational Australians. This is an issue that goes to the very heart of my electorate of Higgins. My electorate is full to the brim with aspiration.
When I stood here for the first time in this place just over two years ago, I referred to the thread that binds the people of Higgins together, that thread being aspiration—whether it be young couples renting for the moment but desperate to own their own homes; whether it be families wanting the best for their children, scrimping and saving to provide them with the best opportunities in life; whether it be small business people, rolling up their sleeves, taking a chance and creating jobs; or whether it be older residents who have worked hard throughout their lives, whose accomplishments prove what can happen when you dare to pursue your ambitions.
Yet this government does not believe in aspiration. It does not believe, as we do, that the best path to our collective prosperity involves giving individuals, families and businesses the freedom, opportunity and encouragement to build and secure their own futures. It does not believe in self-reliance. It is ideologically opposed to encouraging people to work hard, to save and to contribute to their own health care.
This bill is all about penalising individuals and families. It goes to the heart of cost-of-living pressures that families and individuals are already increasingly facing. This bill will increase the cost of private health insurance while at the same time do nothing to decrease the pressure on the public health system. Far from it: the changes that the government seeks to make today will increase the pressure on the public health system.
Seventy-seven per cent of my electorate have private health insurance. That is around 83,258 people, based on the current ABS statistics. Each of those people will be affected, either because their rebate will be taken away in full, because it will be decreased or because their premiums will ultimately rise because of the significant number of people who will drop out of the private health system. Even the remaining 27 per cent of my electorate who do not currently have private health insurance will be affected, because the public health system will come under increasing pressure.
It is instructive to look at the number of people who will be directly impacted when tier 1 of the government's legislation kicks in. In my electorate of Higgins, about 21 per cent of singles and seven per cent of couples will be directly impacted. I think it is telling that the lights have gone out in this chamber, because this legislation is a demonstration of how the lights have gone out on this government and how this government have ultimately been incredibly deceptive in the comments they have made about the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate across the years. It is useful to look back at what this government have said about the 30 per cent rebate—a rebate that was brought into effect by the coalition government, by the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, to ensure that we could have affordable and sustainable health care for all. It was to provide Australians with choice, to encourage people to be self-reliant.
Let us go back and look at what the current Prime Minister, who was then shadow minister, said about the private health insurance rebate. She said that she would give an ironclad guarantee that there would be no change to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. She said that she was so sick of saying it that she would ensure that there would be 'an ironclad guarantee' that there would be no change. All of us in this place know exactly what the Prime Minister's promises are worth. Only days before the last election, the Prime Minister made another promise—that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. She broke that promise to the Australian people and she broke her promise as shadow minister for health not to rip away the private health insurance rebate.
But it was not just the Prime Minister who made this assurance to the people of Australia. At the election in 2007, the shadow minister for health, the member for Gellibrand, explicitly stated that federal Labor had:
… made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates.
In the media statement released during the campaign, she stated:
The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.
That is what she said: 'This is absolutely untrue.' She went on to say:
The Howard government will do anything and say anything to get elected.
Doesn't that take the cake? It turned out that it was the shadow minister for health who would say anything or do anything. This is a very interesting statement from the member for Gellibrand. It has to be one of the most duplicitous statements ever made by a shadow minister with respect to a government policy, ranking just after the Prime Minister's famous remark—her famous broken promise—about a carbon tax.
It went on. Kevin Rudd, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, also made some incredibly explicit promises in relation to the private health insurance rebate. He said, in a letter, which I have here today:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year—
This is in 2007—
that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge. Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for full approval of premium increases.
The Labor government have again broken their promise. In fact, before they went to the 2010 election, they brought forward changes in the 2009 budget which saw a broken promise on private health insurance—a private health insurance broken promise which will affect every single Australian and, most particularly, all of those Australians who currently hold private health insurance. It will affect not just those whom the government claim will be directly affected—those on higher incomes—but every single person who holds private health insurance, because their premiums will rise as people drop out of private health insurance.
The government have said that we should not be worried about the people who drop out of private health insurance. They say that it is a minuscule number. They say that, for their savings of upwards of $1.9 billion—which they now say is over $2 billion—very few people will drop out of private health insurance. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Private health insurers have conducted their own research and asked Deloitte to provide a report on the number of people who would be anticipated to drop out of private health insurance as a result of the proposed changes. The report said that, over five years, up to 1.6 million Australians will drop their cover, which is pretty radically different from Treasury's estimate of around 25,000 people. Not only that but, according to this report, up to 4.3 million Australians will downgrade their cover over five years. This will see an increase in premiums—the cost of health insurance—of upwards of 10 per cent. This means that the cost of health care in Australia will increase.
Australians who are battling cost-of-living pressures right now ask themselves: 'Why? Why is this government so committed to ripping away choice for Australians? Why are they committed to raising the cost of private health insurance?' The government claim this is because they need to find savings. But let us look at the government's record. They have the worst economic record of any government in recent history. They have delivered in their four budgets deficits that add up to $167 billion, which of course means that Australians for generations to come will be paying off the subsequent debt that the government are racking up. Already we know that the cost of the government's borrowings will impact Australians—every man, woman and child—by $6,000. This is a government with a terrible record; a government that has needed to increase the gross debt ceiling from $75 billion to $250 billion.
Warnings abound in our national papers every day that this government is on the path to economic destruction through its waste and mismanagement. It must stop. While this government says it needs to rip out around $2.4 billion from the private health insurance rebate, it has wasted more than $1 billion on pink batts and more than $1.5 billion on trying to correct the mistakes made under that program. This government has managed billion-dollar blowouts in mismanaged programs such as border protection. There has been a blowout of over $1 billion in that policy alone. This government has also wasted billions of dollars on the Julia Gillard memorial school hall projects. A number of school halls and infrastructure projects have not been managed well and there has been an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. While the government has presided over such waste and mismanagement, it claims that it needs to rip money out of private health insurance.
The only reason this government is pursuing this action is that, ideologically, it is opposed to private health insurance. It is opposed to people saving and providing for their own futures and it is against choice in health care. It is now on its the third attempt to dismantle the private health insurance industry in this country. I stand against this, as do the people of Higgins. The people in my electorate of Higgins are vitally opposed to these measures and I will continue to fight for private health insurance that will allow Australians to directly participate. This government should hang its head in shame for taking one policy to the 2007 election and then the 2010 election, but then breaking that promise. This government cannot be trusted to maintain its promises; it cannot be trusted to maintain the health care of all Australians. This legislation should not stand.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (17:03): I am pleased to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and related bills. The House is debating a simple, clear-cut issue—should the Australian tax system encourage all Australians, or as many who are able, to provide for their own medical expenses through taking out health insurance, or should it instead, as this government proposes, put private health insurance and choice of medical provider even further out of the reach of many Australians? Regrettably, that will be the effect of the fundamentally misconceived provisions in the bills the House is debating this afternoon.
When it comes to private health insurance, Labor has form. Labor is relentlessly hostile to private health insurance. Labor is hostile to private hospitals. Labor is hostile to the notion of Australians seeking to rely on their own resources, seeking to make provision for themselves and their families rather than relying solely and exclusively on the public system. This bill is redolent of ideological hostility towards private health insurance and towards self-provision, which is at the absolute core of Labor's approach. That is why this bill is designed to make it harder for Australians to help themselves and their families. This bill is designed to make it more expensive to take out private health insurance; it is designed to penalise many of those who seek to provide for themselves rather than be a burden on the public purse.
Let us remind ourselves of the principal provisions in the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill. Firstly, the current private health insurance rebate, which for most people is set at 30 per cent of expenditures and for older people somewhat higher, will be reduced for those who are above certain income levels. If you are a single and your income level is more than $124,000, the rebate will be reduced to zero; if you fall into certain income levels below that, the rebate will be reduced by lesser amounts. The second major provision in this bill increases the current Medicare levy surcharge on your tax bill which applies if you do not have private health insurance. Today that stands at one percentage point; in the new world, should this bill pass the House, that rate will increase to 1.25 per cent for a single person with an income above $93,000 and 1.5 per cent for a single person with an income above $124,000. We have had some highly illogical and internally inconsistent arguments in support of this measure. Just today in the House the Prime Minister drew a comparison between a highly paid businessmen earning $500,000 a year and an apprentice earning much less, and argued that, in the absence of the measures contained in this bill, there is an unsavoury degree of cross-subsidy on the part of the apprentice to the businessman, who has the benefit of the private health insurance rebate. A brief look at the numbers indicates what a ludicrous claim that is. In the case of the businessman cited by the Prime Minister, the tax on $500,000 is $206,050, prior to the application of the rebate. If we assume a typical level of private health insurance premium then that tax bill will be reduced by a mere $720. By contrast, somebody earning $50,000 will have a tax bill of $10,200. So the suggestion that, in some way, the person paying $206,050 a year in tax is freeloading on the person paying $10,200 in tax, which was essentially the argument put by the Prime Minister in the House, is self-evidently not worth considering when you take even the briefest look at the actual numbers.
I want to make three points in the time I have available. Firstly, the measures inherent in this bill fundamentally attack the provisions of the private health insurance rebate and are an appalling abandonment of what was apparently previously an ironclad commitment. Secondly, for many years we have seen from the Labor side of politics a consistent mismanagement of policy in the area of private health insurance, founded on their implacable ideological hostility to the private health insurance industry. Thirdly, the ill-designed and ill-thought-through measures in this bill will seriously damage choice and equity in health care in Australia.
On the first point, I remind the House, as a number of other speakers have done, of commitments that were made in the lead-up to the 2007 election by a number of eminent members of the Labor Party. The member for Gellibrand had this to say: 'On many occasions for many months federal Labor have made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.' Then it was a commitment; now, apparently, that commitment is out the window and completely meaningless.
What did then opposition leader Kevin Rudd have to say just before the 2007 election? In a written commitment, a letter to the industry body, he had this to say: 'Both my shadow minister for health Nicola Roxon and I have made clear on many occasions this year that federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent rebate and 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.' This is a shameful abandonment of a commitment previously given by the Labor Party.
My second point is that the policy area of private health insurance is one which has been subject to consistent mismanagement over many years by Labor during its times in government, and by contrast the coalition has shown a sure hand in seeking to maximise the number of people who take out private health insurance and thereby contribute themselves towards the cost burden of the health system, which would otherwise fall entirely on the public purse. When Medicare was introduced in 1984, a decline began in the percentage of the population covered by private health insurance. By 1998, only 30.4 per cent of the population was covered by private health insurance. I need hardly add the obvious point that this left the vast majority of Australians drawing on the publicly funded system, putting it under substantial pressure.
The Howard government, I am pleased to say, unlike the approach of the present government, tackled this pressing policy problem with measures that were well designed and which achieved their desired outcome. The desired outcome of course was to increase the proportion of Australians with private health insurance cover—that is, to increase the proportion of people who were taking upon themselves the burden of funding their own health needs rather than simply leaving it to the public purse.
The measures introduced by the Howard government involved a mixture of carrot and stick. The carrot of course was the introduction of the tax rebate, which is now under savage attack in the legislation before the House today. The stick of course was that if you did not take out private health insurance above certain income thresholds, you were required to pay the one per cent Medicare levy surcharge. Those measures were extremely successful. By 2007, private health insurance coverage had climbed to 44.6 per cent of the population. In my own electorate of Bradfield, 85 per cent of households have private health insurance. In other words, a very substantial proportion of the people in my electorate of Bradfield have taken the decision to incur, out of their household budget, expenditure against their future health needs because they want to make sure that they are doing what they can to provide for their own health needs and the costs of those health needs rather than simply leaving it to the public purse to support their health needs. I commend them for doing that.
Let me turn therefore to my third point and perhaps the one which is most important, as the House considers this package of measures. What will be the impact of this legislation on the policy objective of choice and equity in the Australian healthcare system? I am sorry to say the effect of these measures will be very damaging. Some 2.4 million Australians are directly affected and they face an immediate increase in premiums, depending upon which tier they fall within, of between 14 per cent and 43 per cent. In turn, it is likely that there will be a material reduction in the percentage of Australians who hold private health insurance. Conversely, there may also be people reducing the tier of insurance they hold. Private health insurance premiums are likely to rise and the inevitable consequence will be more pressure on the public health system and more pressure on the public purse which funds that public health system.
Analysis by Deloittes, which has been cited by a number of speakers in the House this afternoon, predicts that some 1.6 million consumers are likely to withdraw from private health insurance cover, a number which is very, very different from the panglossian assumption in the work done by the Treasury that a mere 25,000 people will give up coverage. The further issue which presents itself is that the dollars which are purportedly saved out of this exercise must be offset against the extra cost which the government and in turn taxpayers will be required to bear towards the cost of the public health system. According to research conducted by Econtech and other parties in 2004, for every dollar of public funding going into the private health insurance rebate $2 was saved—that is to say, $2 towards the cost of the health system that was met by private health insurers, rather than being required to be paid out of the public purse.
Many of the arguments that have been made by the government in favour of this measure do not bear up to close scrutiny. It is claimed to be a savings measure, but in real terms it is in fact a tax increase, because Australians above a certain income tax threshold who do not take out private health insurance will now face a further increase in their income tax rate, which could be as high as one per cent or 1.5 per cent. This in turn creates what might be described as a price shield for private health insurance premiums, as the eminent economist Henry Ergas has argued in the Australian newspaper today, and the consequence of that is that there will be an upward force on private health insurance premiums which would not have existed in the absence of the measures contained in this bill. The consequence in turn is that private health insurance will become increasingly unaffordable for a proportion of Australians.
When you step back and look at the overall impact of these measures, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that what the Labor Party is doing here is pushing us towards a two-tier health system in Australia, where the poor or the less well off are in the public system and the more affluent are being pushed into a private health insurance funded private system. That seems a very curious approach for the Labor Party to be taking. It is a profound attack on the principles of both economies of scale and equity that the public health system is supposed to deliver and it is one of the many curiosities of this deeply ill-conceived piece of legislation, which attacks fundamentally Australians who seek to provide for themselves.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (17:18): I rise to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge-Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 before the House. The government's proposed changes, which will means test the private health insurance rebate, is a retrograde step that is vehemently opposed by the coalition. Means testing the rebate will drive up premiums, force millions of Australians to downgrade their private health care with many abandoning it all together and increase the pressure on an already stretched public health system. What is more, it is a fundamental breach of another Labor promise. From Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard to Labor's last Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, the government repeatedly stated its commitment to maintaining the private health insurance rebate in its current form. In September 2007, Nicola Roxon said:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates … The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.
Then again in February 2009, Nicola Roxon said:
… the government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
We now know the truth. Whatever modicum of trust was left after Labor's successive backflips on the carbon tax, offshore processing and mandatory precommitment for pokies, it must surely have evaporated after this latest government reversal. How can Labor honestly be trusted on anything? In contrast, the coalition has been consistent in our commitment to not means testing the private health insurance rebate. It goes right to the heart of an individual's freedom to choose and for what many consider to be an act of personal responsibility. We as Liberals want a robust private system in health just as in education, and we want this private system sitting side by side with a viable and effective public system. This was well put by Margaret Thatcher when she, as Prime Minister, said of private health insurance in the United Kingdom:
I, along with something like 5 million other people, insure to enable me to go to hospital on the day I want, at the time I want, and with a doctor I want. For me, that is absolutely vital … Like most people, I pay my dues to the National Health Service; I do not add to the queue, and if I said "Look, because I cannot come when you want me, I must come when I want to" you would accuse me of jumping the queue. I exercise my right as a free citizen to spend my own money in my own way, so that I can go in on the day, at the time, with the doctor I choose and get out fast."
So that was Margaret Thatcher and this thinking could equally apply to the Liberals' approach to private health insurance in this country. There you have it: the doyenne of British conservatism, whose record in limiting the excesses of the state are revered the world over, explaining why she and five million of her fellow Britons had private health insurance. So wouldn't Margaret Thatcher be surprised to learn that we in Australia, where our public system is even more effective than that of the UK or the United States, have around 12 million Australians with private health insurance—a remarkable 52.9 per cent of the population. In an electorate like mine, Kooyong, the number is even higher, with 74½ per cent of its people having private health insurance. This includes nearly 25,000 people who are single. In my electorate of Kooyong this means that more than 100,000 residents are covered by private health insurance. These changes will take money out of the pockets of people in Balwyn, Hawthorn, Kew, Camberwell, Deepdene and Canterbury. It means less money for them to meet the rising costs of living because this money will have to now go, if they choose, into keeping their private health insurance.
Significantly, as my colleague and friend the member for Dickson and shadow minister for health said in a very valuable contribution in this House last week, a remarkable 5.6 million people with private health insurance have an annual household income of less than $50,000 and 3.4 million Australians with private health insurance have an annual household income of less than $35,000. Never let it be said that this is a rebate for the rich. These are aspirational Australians, some of whom do it very tough but take out private health insurance because they have made a considered choice. This is how they want to spend their money. This is the epitome of personal freedom. So too when it comes to the private health insurers in Australia themselves: a number of them are not-for-profit organisations whose bottom line is not to expand their margins but to achieve more affordable health care that delivers a better service for the consumer.
We in this House should also not forget that private hospitals do much of the heavy lifting in our healthcare system. They look after 40 per cent of all patients in Australia. In 2009-10 this equated to 3½ million patients, and for elective surgery the numbers are even higher with nearly two in every three cases taking place in private hospitals. These are remarkable numbers and reflect the fact that the Australian people have been voting with their feet for private health insurance.
Indeed, it was the Howard government's policies which facilitated this very high take-up that we now enjoy. In 1997 John Howard introduced a one per cent Medicare levy surcharge on taxable income, penalising those income earners who did not take up private health insurance; 1999 saw the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate; the year 2000 saw Lifetime Health cover and from 2005 the more elderly people in our community received greater rebates for taking up private health insurance. At every step of this reform process undertaken by the Howard government you could see the take-up rates dramatically improve. For example, in the 12 months after the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate in January 1999, the percentage of Australians with private hospital health cover jumped from 30.6 per cent to 43 per cent and in the years afterwards it jumped to the level we now enjoy at around 52.9 per cent.
What is so concerning to members on this side of the House is the large number of people that will be negatively and directly impacted by this government's legislation. Around 2.4 million people will see immediate rises in their premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent or 43 per cent depending on their income levels. According to the Australian Health Insurance Association, over 800,000 more Australians will be admitted to public hospitals. In their analysis, the top-tier consultancy Deloittes has said that 175,000 Australians will withdraw their private health cover in the first year and 583,000 Australians will downgrade their cover. Over a five-year period those numbers will dramatically rise to 1.6 million people who will withdraw their private cover and 4.3 million people who will downgrade their cover. Even the state-owned Medibank Private has come out publicly and stated that 37,000 of its members will remove their private cover and 92½ thousand of their members will downgrade their cover.
I have no doubt that the government's decision to means-test public health insurance will be deeply unpopular with the Australian people. The public understands that this is not about the future costs of the program. The rebate as a proportion of the total healthcare spend, public and private, has stayed constant at 3½ per cent for the last decade. The public understand that this is not about improving the state of our public healthcare system, for they have heard all that before—the hospital fix that Kevin Rudd promised but which never arrived and the superclinics that were promised but never built. But they do know that this government is under enormous budgetary stress as a result of its own fiscal mismanagement.
This is just a mad dash for cash. They need to scramble for a surplus and in doing so will hit Australian families once again. The problem is that in doing so the consequences of these changes will be profound. Healthy and young people will make up thousands of the thousands of people who give up their private cover, reducing the cross-subsidy that is a hallmark of insurance schemes. Premiums will rise, membership will fall and the overall pressure on our public health system will become even more pronounced.
Be under no illusions. This is bad policy from a bad government and it will come at a bad time for Australian families. This legislation before the House to put a means test on private health insurance in this country must be opposed by all clear-thinking members who are interested not just in the good health of our country's balance sheet but also in the physical health and wellbeing of all Australians.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (17:33): I also rise to speak against the passage of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, which I believe will be a dagger through the heart of the private health insurance industry. I commend the member for Kooyong, who was just speaking, for his remarks, and I associate myself with his comments. There are three reasons I am against this bill before us. First, it is based on a broken promise. Second, it is bad policy that will cause premiums to go up for all Australians. And, third, it is bad economics; it will just lead to greater cost-shifting to the states and longer public hospital waiting lists.
Let me go to the first point—the broken promise. This bill is just another breach of faith from this Labor government. It is another broken promise. We had a firm commitment—in words, in writing—from this government that it would not be amending the private health insurance rebate scheme. The Labor Party made this very, very clear, and it did so time and time again. Perhaps nothing is more clear on this than the letter Mr Kevin Rudd, who at the time was the federal Labor leader, wrote to the chief executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association in late 2007. He wrote:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
There are many other occasions on which this very firm commitment not to amend the private health insurance rebate was made. But what do we have before us? We have a further breach of faith from this government against an explicit commitment it had made.
The second reason I am against this bill is that it is poor policy that will push premiums up for everyday Australians. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you may be aware, an estimated 12 million Australians now have private health insurance. That constitutes over half the Australian population, or 52.9 per cent. Of those, about 10.3 million have hospital treatment cover. The people who take out private health insurance are not, overall, just the wealthiest in Australian society—not by any stretch of the imagination. To give you a few figures to prove this point: 5.6 million people who have private health insurance have a household income of less than $50,000 per annum and 3.4 million have a household income of less than $35,000 per annum. This is not an individual's income; this is a collective household income. It is a broad cross-section of Australian society that is taking out private health insurance. This is a good thing. It is a good thing that a broad cross-section of society takes out private health insurance. It is a good thing that so many people take out private health insurance, because the more people who take out private health insurance the less pressure there is on the public system. As we know there are extensive waiting lists on the public system, there are stresses and there are pressures on it. The more we can take off the public health system the better it is for everybody.
It has not always been the case that we have had such a high proportion of people who take out private health insurance. Far from it. If you go back to the Hawke and Keating governments people were dropping out and the private health insurance system was at quite a critical point. From memory, I believe at that time the percentage of those with private health insurance was down to about 33 per cent of the population. When Howard and Costello came to government in 1996 they saw this problem and tried to rectify it. Indeed, they put in a number of steps over the course of their government to lift the proportion of people who took out private health insurance, and they had a remarkable effect. An estimated 75 per cent more people took out private health insurance as a result of the measures that the Howard-Costello government put in place. That high proportion has been maintained all the way through to this present time. But now we are again at a critical stage. We are at a moment where the tides may turn once again, and turn in a negative direction.
What will be the impact of the proposed changes contained within the bill before us? As we know, some 2.4 million people will be directly affected. They will face immediate increases in their premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent or 43 per cent, depending on their income tier. That is a huge percentage increase in their premiums. This is at a time when many people, even people who are relatively well off, with incomes of $100,000 or $150,000, still have mortgages to pay and when electricity bills, groceries, water bills, child care et cetera are all going up. But the increases will not be limited to those 2.4 million people who are on higher incomes. Rather, the impacts will be felt by everybody who has private health insurance—every single one of those 12 million people.
Deloitte, who have done some analysis of the bill before us, believe that, as a result of the changes proposed, premiums across the board will go up by 10 per cent above what they would ordinarily go up by. Ordinarily we see premiums go up five, six or seven per cent per annum. Here we are talking about potentially a 17 per cent increase in premiums. The government's own private health insurer, Medibank Private, predicts that 37,000 of their members will drop cover because of the increase in premiums. They predict that 95,000 of their members will downgrade their cover because of the increase in premiums that will come about as a result of this bill. That is just one insurance company. That does not include Bupa, Australian Unity or all the other private health insurance companies. That is just one private health insurance company, the government's own, which estimates that 37,000 people with drop out and 95,000 people will downgrade.
Deloitte believe that in the short term 175,000 people could withdraw from private hospital cover and over 500,000 people will downgrade. In the medium term, the five-year horizon, they estimate that 1.6 million people will drop out and 4.3 million people will downgrade. If these figures are anywhere close to being accurate, and I believe they will be, we will be seriously winding back the clock. People will be dropping out again in droves and premiums will skyrocket. This will just put more pressure on the public hospital system, which it does not need at present. More pressure on the public hospital system also means more pressure on taxpayers, who have to pay for the public hospital system.
On that particular point, we have some modelling suggesting that every dollar of funding provided to the private health insurance rebate saves $2 for the government. So, overall, the analysis based on the bill in front of us is that $3.8 billion extra will be required to fund the public hospital system as a result of these particular changes.
In my own electorate over 84,000 people have private health insurance. These are not wealthy people; they are everyday, middle-income Australians. They take out private health insurance not because they are particularly well-off but because they like the convenience, the choice and some of the peace of mind associated with it. Another significant reason for it in my electorate is that they want to have access to Knox Private Hospital, which is for most residents in my electorate the closest and most convenient hospital for them to attend. It is easy for them, and their family members, to get there. Under the changes proposed, many people may have to look further afield in order to access the hospital of their choice, because they may not be able to afford the premiums, should they go up as we expect they will.
Why are the Labor Party doing this, given that it is based on a broken promise and it is poor policy, which we know will put up costs for everyday Australians and cause thousands of people to drop out? We know it will cost the taxpayer potentially billions of extra dollars overall. Why are they Party doing it? There are two reasons. The first is ideological. The Labor Party have never liked private health insurance. They have always argued against the additional benefits that the Howard-Costello government put in place. Despite what they said publicly before election, we have always known that secretly they have wanted to reduce the number of people covered by it.
The second reason that they are doing it, though, is because the Labor Party—the Rudd-Gillard government—have blown the budget so systemically and so categorically that they are now looking for every single dollar that they can possibly find to create the elusive budget surplus come budget time this year. As I pointed out, overall the impact of these bills on the taxpayers will be a negative one, with them potentially paying billions of dollars extra as people shift back to the private health system.
But the accounting trick—and this is the only thing that the government are interested in—means that in the short term there could be savings, because it will shift costs from the Commonwealth across to the states. The states still have to find the money somewhere. They are raising taxes from the same constituents, whether they be in my electorate or any other electorate. But the federal government will be able to make a short-term cost saving, according to the Treasury figures. These bills are in front of us because they do not like private health insurance and never have and because they are desperate to find extra savings because the budget is in such poor shape. This provides them with a neat little accounting trick in the short term to get them through the grave difficulties that they have at the moment.
Let me summarise the position in relation to these bills. They are based on a broken promise—that is the first point. They implement poor policy that will see premiums increase across the board for everyday Australians on very modest incomes. It will see people fall out of private health insurance and put greater pressure on the public health system. That is the second point. Finally, my third point is that these bills are poor economics. They increase the pressure on the taxpayer overall and create additional financial pressure on state governments that the Commonwealth avoids in the short term. I am firmly against these bills. I believe that all sensible members of this parliament should also vote against these bills.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (17:47): I rise tonight to address the Fairer Private Health Insurances Bill 2011, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011. I am pained to even call the package by its name. This package of bills is not designed to make things fairer for Australians and nor is it designed to make things better in our national healthcare system. This legislation is designed to cut the healthcare rebate that families and singles are eligible for. That means nothing less than private health insurance becoming more expensive for working families in this nation. That will compound on increases in the cost of living across the board.
We are battling a healthcare crisis in this country. Public waiting lists have been spiralling out of control and now this government wants to cut private healthcare insurance to save a few dollars. The hallmark of this government is economic mismanagement. This is a Labor government that is happy to spend $50 billion on a National Broadband Network that has only 4,000 customers after five years. It is happy to spend $2 billion on its border protection blowout, including cigarettes for detainees. And yet, when it comes to the lives and wellbeing of the people of Australia, this is where the ALP thinks they should be saving money.
Just a couple of months ago, in November, I read a story in the Newcastle Herald by Jacqui Jones entitled 'Hunter surgery schedule blowout'. It is important that I quote this article to the parliament. It read:
Surgery waiting lists have blown out at some Hunter hospitals to almost four times longer than the national average, with waits increasing 20 times over in the past year for some procedures, the latest data shows.
The most recent information on hospitals’ performance will be made publicly available today through the federal government’s MyHospitals website.
It is based on information provided by public health departments to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
A Newcastle Herald analysis of data for Hunter hospitals showed blowouts in waiting times for surgery in 2010-11, compared with 2009-10, and waits that were longer than national averages.
At Calvary Mater Newcastle, the median wait for plastic surgery was 93 days in 2010-11, compared with the national average of 24 days.
This was up from a wait of four days in 2009-10, and 22 days nationally.
Waiting times for gall bladder removal and hernia repair increased over the year and were longer than national averages.
At John Hunter Hospital, eye surgery patients waited twice as long as their national counterparts.
Delays were long for cataract extraction, with the 282-day median wait (90 days nationally) in 2010-11 up from 176 days (86 days nationally) in 2009-10.
Orthopaedic patients took longer to get to surgery, including for hip and knee replacements, at John Hunter Hospital than patients booked at hospitals elsewhere in Australia.
At Maitland Hospital, orthopaedic lists blew out to a 234-day median wait (national 64 days) in 2010-11, compared with 169 days (national 62 days) in 2009-10.
Increases were also experienced within the year and beyond Australia-wide trends for gynaecological surgery and haemorrhoid removal at Maitland.
The waiting times at Kurri Kurri Hospital for ear, nose and throat surgery and at Belmont Hospital for a hysterectomy increased over the year and were longer than national averages.
Here we have in the Hunter people waiting longer than ever before and yet this Labor government wants to force more people onto the public health system, thereby making the situation much worse. We have people in the Hunter waiting up to four times longer for surgery than their interstate counterparts. And yet all of the members from the Hunter—the member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson; the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon; the member for Charlton, Greg Combet; and the member for Shortland, Jill Hall—are going to push this legislation through. And it looks like they will be joined by Rob Oakeshott, the member for Lyne. They are all just champing at the bit to support the economic mismanagement of this Labor government, which will be to the detriment of people in our region. This really should be a no-brainer. Even the Labor Party should be able to see how destructive this legislation will be. However, I will spell it out, just in case they have not worked it out yet: this legislation will make private health insurance more expensive for 2.4 million Australians. For some of those people it will mean an increase in premiums of 43 per cent. That is a cost of almost 1½ times what they are already paying. Deloitte have done the figures and, under this legislation, 1.6 million Australians are likely to drop their private health cover over the next five years. And, of those who do not drop it altogether, a further 4.3 million will downgrade the level of their coverage. The minister has not even tried to deny this—in fact, she has admitted that people will drop their cover. When coupled with increases in the costs of living, including groceries, rent, power and gas because of this Labor government's reckless carbon tax, yet to come, this is just another attack on families and on their budgets and it is a thing they just cannot afford. According to this Labor government, if you work hard to provide private health care for yourself and your family, you should be punished—you are doing too well for yourself and you are not paying enough.
We only have to take a step back and look at why private health insurance rebates were provided in the first place to understand why the current system works so well. When the Medicare levy surcharge and lifetime health cover were introduced under the previous coalition government, private health insurance coverage increased from 34 per cent in 1996 to 44 per cent in 2007. Today private hospitals treat two in five of all patients in Australia, which accounts for some 3.5 million patients every single year. If those patients do not have private health cover, that is an extra 3.5 million patients for the public health system to cope with—or not cope with, which is more likely the case.
I want to put this into perspective in my own electorate of Paterson. In my electorate there are 46,184 people aged 18 or over with private health insurance, according to the figures published on 1 January 2011. That is around half the adults in my electorate. According to national statistics, 13 per cent of people will drop private health cover under this legislation within just five years. A further 36 per cent of people will downgrade their cover. In Paterson that equates to 6,004 people dropping their private health insurance altogether and 16,626 people downgrading their cover. If just half those people who drop their cover need surgery, that is an extra 3,000 people who are going to be forced into the Hunter health system waiting list—and that is just in Paterson alone; that is not taking into account the electorates of Hunter, Shortland, Charlton, Newcastle or Lyne, which also rely on the Hunter's hospitals. And that does not include those people who have reduced their cover and can no longer go into private hospitals for certain procedures. I know I have just gone through a lot of numbers, but it is important that we understand the real, on-the-ground impacts of this destructive legislation: an extra 3,000 people from Paterson waiting in line for surgery, pushing back other patients and being pushed back themselves, is the real impact.
So it is no surprise to me that, with reckless money-making moves like this one, the Australian public does not trust the Prime Minister or her Labor colleagues when it comes to the economy. In fact, a poll taken last Saturday and published in today's Australianshows that the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, is far more trusted with money matters than the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. He has a nine-point lead on the question of handling the economy, with the Prime Minister having fallen by 14 percentage points since August 2010. Why would the public trust this government on the economy? After all, it is the same government who took a $20 billion surplus and turned it into a $96 billion deficit. This is the same government that takes a solution each and every time and turns it into a problem. There were years that passed without a single boat arrival under the former coalition government—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! The member is straying from the content of the bill. I call you back to the bill.
Mr BALDWIN: I am showing a point on economic mismanagement, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It needs to be relevant to the bill.
Mr BALDWIN: With this economic mismanagement we now have 15,000 people illegally arriving by boat, putting further pressure on the health system. Now the ALP want to do the same thing to private health insurance. They want to create a problem where there isn't one.
Of course, we also know that you just cannot trust this government. What we keep getting is more and more examples of this government's dishonesty—a phoney, whatever-it-takes approach by government. After all, it was this Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who said that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led—and yet we are set for the carbon tax to be introduced from 1 July. It was the same person, when the shadow minister for health, who said in the Weekend Australianin a letter to the editor, in her own writing:
The truth is I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and, contrary to Mr Latham's diaries, do not support such a claim. For all Australians who want to have private health insurance the private health insurance rebate would have remained under a Labor government. I gave an iron-clad guarantee of that during the election. The difference between Tony 'rock-solid, iron-clad' Abbott and me is that, when I make an iron-clad commitment, I actually intend on keeping it.
In a further letter to the editor of the Courier Mailon 23 September 2004 she said:
Your correspondent Russell McGregor should have no concerns that Labor will erode or abolish the 30 per cent government rebate for private health insurance. Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate and I have given an iron-clad guarantee on that on a number of occasions.
That was from Julia Gillard, opposition health spokesperson. In fact, my favourite quote is: 'I grow tired of saying this: Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate,' in a letter to the editor of the Hobart Mercury.
It is just not the Prime Minister, who was then the shadow health minister who gave such guarantees. We only need to look at the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, who, as Leader of the Opposition in 2007, wrote to Dr Armitage of the Australian Health Insurance and said:
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2007 seeking clarification on Federal Labor's policy regarding private health insurance. Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made it clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases. Zero per cent premium adjustment is not Labor policy.
I understand Nicola Roxon's office has also confirmed with you that Federal Labor has no plans to require private health insurance funds to make equivalent payments to public hospitals for patients who elect to be treated as private patients.
I trust this allays your concerns. Federal Labor values its relationship with the private health insurance sector and we look forward to continuing this regardless of the outcome on November 24.
Yours sincerely
Kevin Rudd
Federal Labor Leader
Member for Griffith
Nicola Roxon, then Minister for Health and Ageing, was quoted in the Age on 24 February 2009 as saying:
The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates …
Yet less than three months later, on 12 May 2009, the insurance rebate changes were announced in the budget.
This is a government that says one thing and does another. This is a government that finds a solution and creates a problem—over and over again. We are into 2012 and it is clear that this government neither respects nor values its relationship with the people of Australia who are paying for private health insurance and contributing to support a reduction in pressure on the public health system. All this government seems to want to do, in fact its whole agenda, is to claw back money from working families to prop up its failed economic management position, a position that has created record debt.
This is a desperate move by a desperate government that has squandered the dollars of millions of Australians on wasted programs like the insulation tragedy and the school halls rip-off. I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, to each and every Labor member in this place and to the Independents: the health of our fellow Australians is far more important than all of the other programs that this government has wasted money on. This government will see, under its stewardship, a blow-out in the waiting lists in the public health system. This government will see, under its stewardship, private hospitals close because of a lack of patients. This government will see, under its stewardship, the health standards of the people of Australia deteriorate because it mismanaged the economy and saw as a sacrifice those hard-working Australians who take out private health insurance and who reduce the pressure on the public system. It should be the government's agenda, as it was under the previous coalition government and as it was stated to be by the previous Labor opposition, to support private health insurance to make it affordable for working families. That is why I call on the Independents to refuse to support this legislation that will hurt the people in their constituencies. I reject these bills as presented to the House.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (18:02): Today marks the third time that this government has tried to launch its disgraceful attack on the forgotten families of Macarthur, families who are already doing it tough in these difficult times. This government is shamefully out of touch with the Australian people and with Australian values. The very existence of this bill represents yet another broken promise from Labor. Labor promised, hand on heart, that it would not touch the private health insurance rebate.
I must be having deja vu, because I can vividly recollect a promise to Andrew Wilkie about poker machine reforms, a promise to the Australian people to return the budget to surplus and a promise that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minster. Time after time we have seen repeated betrayals of the people of Australia. This Labor-Greens alliance will say anything to be in government, but, once in government, turn their backs on the people who elected them. They say one thing but do another. This government has a trust and credibility problem with the people of Australia. This bill represents yet another botched and broken election promise that will, without a doubt, result in greater cost of living pressures on families across this nation.
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 are a key part of the Prime Minister's ideological arsenal against the freedom of choice in health care. Private health insurance gives people the choice of treating doctor, the choice of when and where they can access health services, the choice of surgery options and the choice to be treated in a private hospital.
Private health insurance does not take away from the public health system, but instead adds significant value to Australia's total healthcare resources. The private health insurance rebate is a policy that has been staunchly defended by the coalition because it is, simply put, a good policy. The 30 per cent rebate has had a direct result in taking pressure off the public health system, all the while adding value to the health system as a whole. Australia's public health system is highly regarded and does a fantastic job with the resources at its disposal. I am confident that, under the leadership of the Liberal New South Wales government of Premier Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales public health system will see many positive developments over the coming years. It is not feasible to say that the public health system in Australia could survive without the complementary benefits that the private health system provides.
This bill is a shameless measure shifting cost from the Commonwealth to the states' public systems. When the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate was introduced by the Howard government, the national coverage of private health insurance rose from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. The Howard government had the foresight to also introduce the Medicare levy surcharge for those who should be able to afford private health insurance but for whatever reasons had not taken it up. This measure ensured that those who chose not to contribute to their own health care through the private health care system would still contribute to the public health care system. The test used to determine whether a person would be liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge would include taxable income, reportable fringe benefits, reportable superannuation contributions and total net investment losses. This government is trying to distort these provisions by seeking to apply the same income tests to determine whether families will also lose their rebate. It is a perversion of what the Medicare levy surcharge sought to achieve. This test will not just be used for people who opt out of eligible private health insurance, but apply to people who are currently paying their premiums and benefiting from the 30 per cent rebate. These people will lose out: some will be pushed into a lesser category of the rebate and some will lose their rebate all together. All Australians will face higher premiums because of this disgraceful government's actions.
The private health insurance rebate gives families in Macarthur the incentive to provide for their own healthcare needs and get a little back from the government for doing so. This support, in the form of a 30 per cent rebate on eligible private health insurance policies, contributes back into the health system many times over through private health insurance premiums. For a couple in their mid-30s with two children, basic hospital and extras cover will cost at least $3,000 a year without the rebate. If people are going to be socially responsible and put their discretionary income towards their own healthcare costs, why should we punish them? Their investment in their health and, in turn, in the private health system, contributes to the resources that are available in both the public and private health systems. If this government decides to take away the incentive for people to purchase private health insurance, we risk losing the entire premium, and in turn create added pressure on the public system. This ideological attack on private health insurance may represent a short-term saving, but the longer-term implications on families are far-reaching.
The immediate financial impacts of this bill will not just be felt by the 2.4 million people on higher incomes who will face immediate increases of their premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent and 43 per cent. All Australians with private health insurance will face higher premiums in the future if these changes proceed. Deloitte have predicted that private health insurance premiums will rise 10 per cent above what they would otherwise be. In addition, Deloitte's analysis of the proposed changes shows that in the first year 175,000 people would be expected to drop their private hospital cover, and a further 583,000 are expected to downgrade their cover. Over five years, Deloitte's modelling forecasts that 1.6 million people will drop their cover and 4.3 million will downgrade. This is in stark contrast to the minister's figures of only 27,000 to drop their cover. Indeed, the government owned insurer, Medibank Private, has predicted that 37,000 of its members alone will drop their cover and 92,500 will downgrade.
How did the minister get it so wrong? This is yet another example of the government's botched attempts at health reform and lack of thorough planning in policy making. It is a case of this Prime Minister and Labor yet again meddling with a good policy that works, a policy that delivers and a policy that has provided quality health care to Australian families. This bill is already bearing the hallmarks of the Malaysia solution all over again. With each person either dropping or downgrading their cover, there is a flow-on effect of a net reduction of resources within the private healthcare system. Each policy downgrade will place greater pressure on the public health system, all the while punishing those who continue in the private health system.
The government has not even bothered to disclose the numbers of people expected to downgrade their private health insurance coverage. It is reasonable to expect that many people will seek a cheaper product with fewer procedures covered, which will have second-round effect for public hospitals. This represents $3.8 billion in additional recurrent costs for the public sector. In Macarthur 63,828 people are covered by some form of private health insurance, representing 47.8 per cent of voters. Suffice to say, this legislation will affect close to half of my electorate.
At the 2007 election the government promised, hand on heart, that they would not touch the private health insurance rebate. However, soon after elected, they tried to push through this legislation, not once but twice. The Senate soundly rejected it. Now the Prime Minister is relying on her good graces with the Greens to push this bill through and once again betray the trust of families in Macarthur and Australia-wide. I guess it must get easier the more you do it. The government have no foot to stand on when they say they will deliver on a promise. Just look at their track record. They have bungled every program and policy that they have laid their hands on. Now this government is attempting to undermine both the public and private health systems simultaneously. This legislation is nothing more than a noxious housewarming gift for a newly elected NSW government with the monumental task of fixing up more than 15 years of total and utter neglect of the public health system under Labor.
Allied health services are also expected to bear the brunt of this government's attack on private health insurance. It is expected that 2.8 million people with general treatment cover are going to withdraw and 5.7 million to downgrade over five years. This means fewer people accessing allied health services, which means less income and fewer jobs. Families in Macarthur are already financially stretched to the limit. Many pensioners are at the point where they have had to give up their private health insurance after the recent rise in premiums—and at a time of life where they cannot afford to lose it. The government's proposed changes are just going to make a bad situation worse.
The coalition has strongly supported giving Australians the choice of affordable private health insurance. The 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums is a proven policy that we have seen works. Families in Macarthur are going to be negatively impacted by this legislation, and many will have no option but to forgo private health insurance and rely on the already stretched public system. This is a bad policy that will do nothing but harm both our public and private health systems and I would urge members of the House to keep faith with their electorates and reject it. So I say this to members opposite: stand up for affordable and accessible private health cover. Stand up for your community, your seniors and your youth. Stand up for a fair go for Aussie families. Stick to the ironclad guarantee that the Prime Minister previously made to the Australian public: 'Under no circumstances will we touch the private health insurance rebate.' As late as August 2010 the Prime Minister also stated, 'Medicare rebates are safe under Labor.' How safe? These bills change all that. No wonder there is a trust and credibility problem with this government.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:12): In rising to address this Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill, I have some difficulty getting past the name of the bill itself. It makes it sound like the bill will make things 'fairer'. But this bill has nothing to do with fairness. In fact, it is the exact opposite of fairness. It is about trying to justify the introduction of what is most certainly not fair. I am reminded of the late master of wit Groucho Marx, who said: 'The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.' That is a rather appropriate quote for this bill, I thought, because the bill is anything but honest and it is trying to fake fairness. In reality it is not about fairness at all. It is actually more in line with the views of the other Marx, Karl, and penalising the so-called rich. It is about a desperate bid to create a surplus and it is about robbing the hard-working people of this nation who will do the work to create that surplus, if it ever happens. It has been 21 years since the Labor Party posted a surplus and it must be getting embarrassing for the government every year as they introduce new budgets. We have the Treasurer here trying to say that he is going to get one next year—because he will do anything to create the illusion of a surplus; just making it look like a surplus temporarily will do. But Australian families know that what this government says is only good for a few months at best.
But this time there is not enough smoke, there aren't enough mirrors. So now we see the Treasurer hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat—a $2.78 billion rabbit. They were running around, rifling through the files, looking up old copies of Hansard, scanning the demographic data, trying to find a sector of the community that is getting ahead, trying to find someone who hopes for a better future and is willing to work hard to achieve it. That was their bunny and they found it: a dead and twice-buried plan to tax those people who work hard for a better life. They have found yet another way to rob the rewards that were earned by someone else. So here we are today, once again standing up to the Labor Party, the party of big tax. The title of this bill purports to be about a private health insurance incentive. That word is important: 'incentive'. The proposed legislation is not about incentive at all. There is no carrot here. This is the stick and stick approach. This government is pulling out the stick to those who pay for private health insurance. Anyone who has the gall to work hard and earn $80,000 or more a year will now have to pay more for their health insurance. That is not an incentive; that is a disincentive. It is a disincentive to earn more and it is a disincentive to purchase private health cover. Just in case this legislation means you cannot afford private health cover anymore, the government has another stick waiting for you—a baseball bat to slug more tax out of you in the form of the Medicare levy. So what we have is a lose-lose situation. This plan was beaten down twice before when there was so much opposition that even this government promised it would not happen again. Yet here it is again today. Prior to the 2007 election, we had Labor's then shadow health minister promising, in a media statement from 26 September 2007:
Federal Labor rejects the Liberal scare campaign around the private health insurance rebates. On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
It goes on to say:
The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.
If this is absolutely untrue, then why is Labor introducing a bill today to do exactly that again? I thought maybe there was a typo in the media release and that the member for Gellibrand meant that it was absolutely correct. But then she was backed up two months later by then federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, the future Prime Minister, going to the 2007 election with this promise—this is what the member for Griffith wrote to Dr Michael Armitage of the Australian Health Insurance Association just four days before the 2007 election:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
We even had the current Prime Minister, back when she was shadow Minister for Health and Ageing, saying this to Laurie Oakes:
We will leave the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate undisturbed because we understand it's factored into family incomes—
a very interesting observation from the Prime Minister. Clearly the Australian Labor Party no longer understands Australian families or the fact that they have to factor these costs into their household budgets. So here we are debating a 'fairer' private health insurance incentive bill.
What is fair about this scenario? Consider two young men. Let us call one Bill. He lives and works in Melbourne and earns $79,000. The other—let us call him Ben—lives and works in regional Australia, participating in the resources boom that currently underpins our economy. Bill in Melbourne leads a pretty comfortable life. He has no trade and no tertiary studies behind him. He has spent long periods on unemployment benefits. He currently has a nine-to-five job which pays a good income of $79,000. He rents a large furnished apartment in the CBD for $450 a week. He does not need a car and walks to the MCG to watch his football team play, or to the cricket, and it is a pretty good life.
Now let us look at Ben, the bloke in country Queensland. He spent three years doing an apprenticeship when he supplemented his income to survive by working a casual job on nights and weekends. He has never missed a day of work and currently works long hours to earn $80,000. He has to maintain a work ute to get to job sites and carry his tools. He pays $550 a week in rent and if he wants to watch the Bulldogs play football, he is up for $600 in flights and $600 accommodation before a ball is bounced. Groceries, fuel, even a cup of coffee in his area are much more expensive because a labour shortage and high freight costs are pushing up the price of everything. I am sure Ben cannot wait for the carbon tax because he will cop the worst of the cost increases, being in regional Queensland. He will not be compensated in any way because his income is deemed 'too high'. As a result, Bill puts his feet up in his Melbourne apartment, comfortable in the knowledge that, even though he has a lower salary, he has a much higher disposable income compared with Ben.
Under this 'fairer' legislation, Ben will also be facing higher costs for private health insurance. He works harder and longer hours. He has less money to spend but this government wants to tax him more, even though he already pays more tax than Bill. How is that fair? This is not an exaggerated case to make a point. This government wants to remove private health insurance incentives entirely from a family earning $249,000 this year. They would have us believe that this family sits around, watching a big plasma television, waiting for a $250,000 cheque to turn up in the mail. They would have us believe a family earning $249,000 or more a year are greedy, rich people who should be robbed with an unfair tax. This family is not just a statistic. It is a family of real human beings with real jobs, real children and real expenses.
For a husband and wife who both work in the mines at Moranbah in your electorate of Capricornia, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, where they live with their four children, to rent an average four-bedroom home they will be paying between $1,800 and $3,200 a week. Some rents are even higher. That translates to between $93,000 and $166,000 just for rent. By the time you take out income tax and rent, our family on $249,000 a year out in Moranbah probably cannot afford to feed the kids, let alone pay fully for private health insurance. This government would have us believe that these people are evil people of 'privilege'—the old class warfare bogey. This government does not even know these people because it stopped connecting with real people a long time ago. This government wants to smack such a family back down to the lowest level because they dared to have a dream—they wanted to get ahead.
I noticed an interesting headline in the Australian on Friday from a family talking about the costs this legislation will impose on them. The headline was a quote from Ms Kylie Richards from Adelaide, who, with her husband, owns a commercial flooring business. She said:
It's ridiculous—the better we do, the more the government takes … Every time we try to get ahead and don't rely on the welfare system, we get a guarantee they'll hit us again.
Ms Richards has summed up beautifully this government's fallback position: none shall get ahead. I can imagine the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport taking a quote from Gandalf. They shall not pass is what he is saying to Australian families. What this government will do with this bill is crucify both the economy and the health system.
According to this government, there are 2.4 million people living a life of privilege in this country, because that is how many people will be affected by this legislation. The result will be thousands—tens of thousands, I would say—of Australians dropping private health insurance because they simply cannot afford it anymore. In my electorate of Dawson, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of residents who will be worse off. Families that are already under pressure from the escalating costs of living will have to make a saving somewhere else.
The minister has claimed 27,000 individuals would drop their health insurance cover if this bill were passed. But the government owned insurer Medibank Private suggests that figure is more, that in fact 37,000 of their members alone will drop their cover and a massive 92,500 people will downgrade their private health cover. That is just Medibank Private and what they see happening with their own members.
Taking an independent, industry-wide approach, the Australian Health Insurance Association commissioned Deloitte to assess the impact of this proposal. Their findings were that, should this bill be passed, 1.6 million consumers would drop private hospital cover, a further 4.3 million would downgrade their cover and a further 2.8 million would drop their general cover. Deloitte also has predicted that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 per cent over and above what they would otherwise be. So then everyone will cop it because of this government's bill.
As families and individuals leave private health in droves, this government will be rubbing its hands with glee. On the face of it—fingers crossed, guys!—that will be a massive saving for this year's budget deficit. It may be enough of a saving to create the illusion of a surplus. But the truth is that, for every dollar the government spends on health insurance rebates, the private health insurers are spending $2 on the provision of health services. Those private health services will now have to be provided by the public health system. What this government is hoping to do is throw a 'hospital pass' to the states for the sake of taxing Australian families and squeezing out its first surplus in 22 years.
Being a Queenslander, I find that a frightening proposition. The Labor government in Queensland has plumbed the very depths of incompetence already without having to cope with more pressure on its health service. Private hospitals currently treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia—some 3.5 million patients in the 2009-10 financial year. How will the bungling Queensland Health system—an organisation that the Premier tells us has failed under her watch—cope with their share of the increased workload? Private hospitals currently perform 64 per cent of elective surgeries in Australia. Where will the funding come from for the public health system to cope with such an increased workload?
In creating this 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' situation for families with private health cover, the government is basically kicking an own goal. Even if this white rabbit is combined with enough smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of a surplus, it will be just a matter of time before the mirrors crack and the smoke clears. When it does, Australian families who can no longer afford private health insurance will see nothing but a rotting rabbit carcass that carries the stench of deception, incompetence and betrayal.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (18:26): I rise tonight to talk on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011. There are three points that I would like to make loud and clear. The first is that what we are debating tonight is an issue of trust—whether we can trust this government to say one thing before an election and then do that after an election. It is sad to say that this private health insurance piece of legislation that we are debating tonight adds to the list of broken promises. I would also like to discuss its implications on the cost of living, which is increasing on a daily basis for Australian citizens. This piece of legislation, sadly, will once again add to this cost of living. The third point I would like to make is about what this bill will do to cost shifting from the Commonwealth to the states. The state governments are already facing increased health costs. The Labor government on coming into power said that they were going to do something about that, that they were going to stop the blame game, that they were going to fix our health system. But what do we see them doing with this piece of legislation? They are moving the cost of health care away from the Commonwealth and onto the states. Those are the three issues that I would like to garner tonight.
I will start on the basic issue of trust. Truth is a five-letter word and I suggest to the Prime Minister—if it is okay, Madam Deputy Speaker—that she might learn how to spell it and act on it because, as we saw with the carbon tax, one thing was said before the last election and one thing was done after it. To be fair to the Prime Minister, on this occasion she was the member of a cabinet. She was not the Prime Minister but she was a member of the cabinet when the decision was made to say one thing before the 2007 election on the private health insurance rebate and then do another thing afterwards. But it was a precursor of what was to come.
Let us look at the letter that Kevin Rudd wrote to the honourable Dr Michael Armitage. I think it is worth just briefly going through it. It says:
Dear Dr Armitage,
Thankyou for your letter of 29 October 2007 seeking clarification on Federal Labor’s policy regarding private health insurance.
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases. Zero per cent premium adjustment is not Labor policy;
I understand Nicola Roxon’s office has also confirmed with you that Federal Labor has no plans to require private health insurance funds to make equivalent payments to public hospitals for patients who elect to be treated as private patients.
I trust this allays your concerns. Federal Labor values its relationship with the private health insurance sector and we look forward to this continuing regardless of the election outcome on November 24.
As we know, Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister and Julia Gillard became a cabinet minister of the Rudd government.
Mr Baldwin: And an assassin.
Mr TEHAN: And later an assassin, as my good friend the shadow minister for tourism so rightly interjects. As soon as they got in—the alarm bell should have been ringing there and then—the spending got out of control and the budget forecast did not look too good, and what was the first thing they did? They looked at the private health insurance rebate as a way of trying to get the budget back into a state which could give some sort of credibility to the Labor government's very poor efforts in managing the economy. Having been quite prepared immediately before the 2007 election to say one thing and then do completely the opposite afterwards, we should have known that this was a precursor of what the government was prepared to do on the carbon tax before the 2010 election.
Sadly, when it comes to this issue of truth, we have also seen it raise its ugly head when it comes to what happened on Australia Day. It seems very hard—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! The member for Wannon will restrict his remarks to the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill.
Mr TEHAN: One of the key points which need to be made on this bill is around the issue of trust.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member can make it in the context of the bill.
Mr TEHAN: The second point that I would like to make refers to cost of living. This piece of legislation will add to the cost of living in this country. Those on the other side may argue that this is a one-off in adding to the cost of living and therefore it is something that needs to be done. But the truth is that it is not a one-off. We have seen the price of insurance rise incredibly in the last three to six months. People have seen their bills go from $500 to $5,000 in the invoices they have been issued in the last couple of months. We have seen electricity prices rising exponentially, and they are going to get worse, sadly. We have seen the cost of child care rising. The cost of living is biting; it is hitting hard. What is the government's answer? To increase it even further. That is what this bill will do.
The sad thing is that the cost-of-living increase will hit those who can least afford it. It will hit the pensioners who save so that they can take out private health insurance and who want to have the surety of knowing that they can get the medical help they desire later in life. They will be the ones who will hang onto private health insurance. They will be the ones who have to put up with the increases in premiums. Because of the cost increase as a result of this decision, the more mobile, younger and healthier people will decide that they do not see a need to continue to take out private health insurance. This will put pressure on premiums. It will put pressure on those who want to take out full coverage—elderly Australians. Premiums will rise as a result of this decision by this government. Sadly, once again, we are going to see cost-of-living pressures on those who can least afford it as a result of this government's policy.
This is not only going to add to the cost of living. It will also add to the healthcare bills of state governments. When Labor was elected in 2007 it said it was going to stop the blame game when it came to the health sector in Australia. For too long, the Labor Party said, the argy-bargy between the states and the Commonwealth had led to the sector declining, to waiting lists growing and to people having to wait in emergency too long to get the attention that they need. Yet what do we see now? Firstly, we see the great reforms that were promised to the health sector amount to nothing. What was finally agreed did nothing to end the blame game. All it did was see the Commonwealth try to take some power off the states in the way the hospital system was managed without providing any real increases in finances to help the states do their job.
Now what are we seeing? We are seeing the Commonwealth come along and once again shift more costs onto the state government. There is no-one who argues against this fact leading to more pressure on our public health system. The Commonwealth should do the right thing by the states and say: 'We are going to take this decision to try to get our budget back in order. We have spent far too much on things like pink batts and school halls. We have wasted billions of dollars. We need to get our budget back in order. Therefore we are going to cost-shift on you. But we are going to do the right thing and help you do that. We are going to give you some of the cost to help you deal with the increased demand that you are going to see in the public health system.' They have not done that, so the states are going to have to cope with the increase in public hospital waiting lists which will occur as a result of this legislation. They are going to have to deal with the increase in demand in the emergency areas of hospitals which will occur as a result of these changes. And what are the Commonwealth doing to help the states deal with that? Nothing. They are blatantly cost shifting, and they need to own up and say that that is what they are doing. That is how desperate they have become to try to get a budget surplus in May, to try for the first time in over 21 years to get a Labor government budget surplus.
The Australian people will not be fooled by the way that this government is going about it. It is smoke and mirrors, and it is doing nothing to fix the structural imbalances that we currently have in the economy. These need to be fixed so that we can have a reduction in the $132 billion of net debt which will peak this year and so that we can see reductions in the way this government spends its money and in the way that it tries to account for getting its budget into surplus.
There are three points we need to look at. The first is the issue of trust, and I will make one simple point on that issue. I quote Nicola Roxon on 26 September 2007:
Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates.
What happened instead? Only a year or so later we saw a complete reversal of that explicit promise that was made to the Australian people before the 2007 election. That decision was made collectively by then Prime Minister Rudd and then cabinet minister Gillard.
The second thing this legislation will do is add to the already growing list of cost-of-living pressures that this government is putting on the Australian people: insurance costs, electricity costs, childcare costs and private health insurance costs. I could go on and on. The third thing that this bill will do is shift costs from the Commonwealth onto the states, and it will do it despite this government saying that it was determined to stop the blame game and to fix the Australian health system once and for all. It was very clear who was raising money, where the money would be spent and how the services would be delivered so that people could point to where the system was and was not working, rather than having the federal government and state government saying, 'The whole issue depends on the service delivery and the costs and you aren't getting that right.'
That is why I stand here today opposing these changes. They are a breach of trust, they will add to the cost of living and, worse than that, they will shift the cost of delivering health care from the Commonwealth to the states at a time when the states need help in delivering the services they want to deliver. They do not need extra costs being put on their health services.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:41): I rise tonight to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011. It is a rather Orwellian name, for it is certainly not fairer and it certainly has nothing to do with incentives. If there was one single reason that this bill should be opposed it is the issue of credibility and trust. Even the learned member for Lyne has recently and openly stated that our current Prime Minister, and therefore our government, has a credibility problem.
Let us just have a look at what this Prime Minister and members of this government have said in the past on the issue of private health insurance. Exhibit No. 1 is a press release from Julia Gillard, shadow minister for health, transcript of doorstop interview, state parliament Melbourne, 22 August 2004:
Reporter: Can the Labor Party make a commitment to do with private insurance if they were to be elected?
Ms Gillard: Labor has committed to keeping the 30% private health insurance rebate.
I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's broken promise on keeping the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate contained in the press release dated 22 August 2004.
Leave not granted.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Exhibit No. 2 is the transcript of an interview on the Sunday program on 29 August 2004 between Laurie Oakes and the then shadow health minister and current Prime Minister:
Laurie Oakes: What about the 30 per cent health insurance subsidy?
Julia Gillard: We've said that we will keep the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. That is out there now in the community. It's a payment that's been factored into family budgets, into people who are working and struggling with the bills and the mortgage and the payments for the kids, and also into the family budgets of older Australians who have private health insurance.
It went on:
We will leave the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate undisturbed because we understand it's factored into family incomes.
I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's broken promise of 29 August 2004 in the interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program.
Leave not granted.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Exhibit No. 3 is a transcript of an interview between Tony Jones and Julia Gillard on ABC's Lateline on 12 September 2006. It says:
Tony Jones: … Are you going to look again at the private health care rebate. Is that sacrosanct?
Julia Gillard: No, the private health insurance rebate will be staying under Labor. We committed to that at the last election. Indeed, we committed to it at the election before. From time to time the Howard Government runs out with a scare campaign here but the private health insurance rebate will stay.
I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's broken promise on keeping the 30 per cent health insurance rebate contained in the transcript of the interview between Tony Jones and Julia Gillard on ABC's Lateline.
Leave not granted.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Exhibit No. 4 is a media statement dated 26 September 2007 entitled 'Liberal scare campaign on private health insurance rebates—Federal Labor to retain rebates'. It says:
Federal Labor rejects the Liberal scare campaign around the Private Health Insurance rebates.
… … …
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
… … …
The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates.
This is absolutely untrue.
I seek leave to table the Labor government's broken promises on keeping the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate contained in a media release dated 26 September 2007.
Leave not granted.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Exhibit No. 5 is a letter from the then federal Labor leader, the member for Griffith, to Dr Michael Armitage, CEO of the Health Insurance Association. It reads:
Dear Dr Armitage,
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2007 seeking clarification on Federal Labor’s policy regarding private health insurance.
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per rebates for older Australians.
… … …
I trust this allays your concerns.
I seek leave to table the letter from the then federal Labor leader to the Australian Health Insurance Association containing the broken promise on keeping the 30 per cent health insurance rebate.
Leave not granted.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Exhibit No. 6 is from the Hobart Mercury and is a letter of 2 September 2004 from the current Prime Minister, and then shadow minister for health. It states: 'Tasmanian Liberal deputy leader told two lies in the Mercury when he said that a Labor government would scrap the private health insurance rebate. I grow tired of saying this: Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.'
I seek leave to table the letter in the Hobart Mercury of the current Prime Minister, and then shadow minister for health, dated 2 September 2004, containing this further broken promise that Labor was committed to maintaining the health insurance rebate.
Leave not granted.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: What a surprise; they simply do not want to know. Does anyone see a pattern here with the infamous broken promise on the carbon tax? Not only do we have Labor misleading the public on important policy issues but they take the misrepresentation further by accusing those dastardly Liberals of a scare campaign by daring to suggest that Labor cannot be trusted.
It is not just broken promises on the health insurance rebate and the carbon tax. We have seen this government mislead the member for Denison and leave him hanging out to dry. We have seen them mislead the public on the issue of gay marriage. But I think the most appalling example of this government's misleading conduct is their statement in regard to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. For the Prime Minister to get up in front of a room full of disabled people and their carers at last year's national disability awards and claim that the NDIS will be the defining achievement of this government, when they have not committed one brass razoo and not one single cent to funding for the NDIS was absolutely shameful.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I remind the member for Hughes that we are debating the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and to remain within the parameters of that bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: This pattern of repeated misleading conduct not only has destroyed the Prime Minister's credibility but is weakening our entire democracy. What person is ever going to believe another word that this Labor government says. If they told you it was raining outside, you would need to go outside and check for yourself. If this bill is passed, as we go into the next election—based on this government's track record—any commitment, any promise, is not going to be worth the paper it is written on.
I say to the Independents: there is a heavy responsibility upon you when it comes to voting for this legislation. In years past, the Independents have justified their place in this parliament by sitting here under the motto of 'keeping the bastards honest'. But if the Independents vote with Labor on this bill, they will have simply aided and abetted this government's dishonesty.
This bill has nothing to do with attempting to improve health insurance. It has nothing to do with creating more hospital beds. It has nothing to do with improving health services. It is all about a short-term revenue grab—a desperate attempt to cook the books to show a wafer-thin surplus in the next financial year. This is despite having run up the four largest budget deficits in Australian history—a combined total of $167 billion. The so-called saving from this bill of $2.8 billion is a further cooking of the books for it does not take into account the $3.8 billion in additional costs that will be generated down the line and generated on state budgets. Make no mistake, this government's inability to manage a budget is the only reason we are debating this bill here today, and today, as every day, they are showing how little they care for the challenging costs of living faced by people in Sydney and the rest of our other major cities and country areas.
If this bill passes parliament, it will start off a vicious circle which will ultimately punish working families. Firstly, with so many cost-of-living pressures being inflicted by this government—electricity prices, childcare costs and the spectre of the carbon tax predicted to fall on the economy like a sledgehammer—removing this rebate will simply see people either downgrade their existing private health insurance or drop it altogether, thereby pushing more people into the public health system. A Deloitte analysis has shown that in the first year 175,000 people would withdraw from private health insurance cover and a further 583,000 people would downgrade their coverage. The answer is obvious to reasonable Australians: by driving people away from private health insurance, the cost of premiums for those that remain in the system will be forced up. The Deloitte analysis predicts a 10 per cent rise in premiums above what they would otherwise be. With fewer people paying for private health insurance, existing premiums will continue to increase, thereby setting off another round of people either downgrading their private health insurance or dropping it altogether—again, pushing another lot of people away from the private system and into the public health system.
The report goes on to estimate that, over five years, 1.6 million Australians will drop their cover and a further 4.3 million will downgrade it. Ultimately, the people who will be most hurt by this bill are the Australians earning less than $50,000 that make up 50 per cent of Australians with health insurance. It will lengthen hospital queues. It will cause pain, suffering and hardship. Millions of Australian families that are doing their bit for the economy, even though they are already struggling with cost of living pressures, will be hurt by this bill. No wonder there are no government members left on the other side to defend this broken promise which will penalise Australian families at the time when they can least afford it.
In my seat of Hughes there are 91,000 people that rely on their private health insurance cover, and many of these 91,000 people will be forced to fork out an additional $935 a year. That has been made clear by the recent Deloitte report. This bill—the so-called Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill—and its associated bills will rip support from families doing the right thing by our public health system. The millions of Australian families that will be hurt by this bill are doing their bit for the country, even though they are already struggling with cost-of-living pressures—and this will only be made worse by the carbon tax. We are again seeing Labor driving the dagger of cost of living into the heart of middle-class working families. Shame on this government for introducing this bill, and shame on every Labor member who votes for it. I call on the Independents to live up to the motto 'keep the bastards honest' and vote against this bill.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (18:55): I rise to oppose the deceptively entitled Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and two cognate bills. I describe these bills in this way particularly because the content of this legislation is anything but fair. It does not matter how much the government tries to dress these bills up; it will not change the fact that it proposes a severe impact on families, the private health industry and public health services in Brisbane and across the nation.
In Australia we face many policy challenges in the area of health. As the population and the average life span continues to grow, the demand on our health system will increase quite dramatically. The percentage of health spending in state government budgets increases every single year, yet they seem to make very little progress when the waiting lists grow longer and longer. That is why it is important to ensure that as many people as possible have the capacity to purchase private health insurance to alleviate the pressure on our public health system.
The Howard government recognised this. According to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council 2009-10 annual report to the government, in the 15 years between 1984 and 1998 the percentage of Australians with private health cover had halved to just a little over 30 per cent of the population. To fix this decline in membership, the then government—which I was proud to be a part of—introduced a number of initiatives: in 1997 the one per cent Medicare levy surcharge for high-income earners who had not taken out private health insurance and the 30 per cent premium tax rebate for taxpayers who had taken out some form of private health insurance. These policy measures worked. The take-up of private health insurance has taken off since then—so much so that last year $12.4 billion in benefits was paid to some of the 11.7 million Australians who now hold some form of private health insurance cover. This is approximately 52 per cent of the Australian population. This is also reflected in my electorate of Brisbane where 89,920 persons are covered by some form of private health insurance, and 66,676 of these are voters. This equates to 72.1 per cent of the voting population, which is 20 per cent above the national average.
This Labor government wants to undo this great work through the suite of bills we have here before us tonight. It is the third time they have come before this chamber. They were rejected twice by the Senate in the last parliament, and yet here we go again. These bills create a three-tier system in the private health insurance rebate, slashing the rebate and increasing the Medicare levy surcharge for Australian taxpayers within certain income categories. The rhetoric coming out of the Labor Party is that somehow this is rectifying a situation where the rich are being subsidised for their private health insurance by those on lower incomes. Yet, under tier 1, the rebate is slashed by 10 per cent for singles earning over $80,000 and couples earning over $160,000 per year. Let us be clear about this: we are talking here about a teacher married to a policeman. These are the hardworking forgotten Australians aspiring to success. Since the announcement of these measures there has been a litany of evidence produced showing the absolutely disastrous impact that they would have on the public hospital system and the private health insurance industry. These changes will do one thing and one thing only: they will force people to drop their private health cover or choose cheaper cover with more procedures excluded, thus creating upward pressure on premiums and forcing more people into an overcrowded, overstretched public health service system. Every dollar of funding provided for the private health insurance rebate actually saves $2 of costs that are then paid by the private health insurers. Private hospitals in this country treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia and in 2009-10 they treated 3.5 million patients. They performed some 64 per cent of elective surgery in Australia.
Treasury projected that following these changes only 25,000 high-income consumers would withdraw their cover across the whole sector. This was then clearly proven to be inaccurate when the government-owned insurer Medibank Private came out and said 37,000 of its members alone would drop their cover and some 92,500 members would downgrade—an enormous number of people. A report into these measures by the highly regarded consultancy firm Deloitte for the Australian Health Insurance Association produces some very, very telling findings. Their analysis relies on the results of a survey by ANOP Research Services of 2,000 holders of private health cover on their intentions and the effect of a slashing of the rebates.
I note that the former Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, in her second reading speech took aim at the ANOP survey, saying it was wildly inaccurate, but she cannot ignore the fact that she was the health minister then. It was a very simple survey asking people what their intentions were and the importance of the rebate to them. It was really interesting to note that one of the people who designed and interpreted the survey was none other than Mr Rod Cameron, who for many years was an ALP pollster and numbers man. So his expertise and his wonderful work was good enough for the Labor Party to use and to rely on over many years, yet as soon as he produces something that they do not like they do not want to hear about it—they attack the work that he produces.
I will not go through the entirety of the Deloitte assessment. However, I do want to quote a brief passage from the executive summary, which summarises the findings. It states:
Significant numbers of consumers will withdraw from their private hospital cover (1.6 million consumers over five years) or downgrade to lower levels of private health cover (4.3 million consumers over five years) following the proposed policy change.
The Deloitte assessment has some very significant figures here. It also says:
Significant numbers of consumers will also withdraw from their general treatment cover (2.8 million consumers over five years) or downgrade to lower levels of private health cover (5.7 million consumers over five years) following the proposed policy change.
The interesting fact that it also mentions is that private health insurance premiums will rise 10 per cent above what would otherwise be expected. So we have a situation whereby premiums will rise and private health cover will become less affordable for consumers—and that is not just those in those tiers. As people withdraw from private health insurance, the burden on publicly provided health services will continue to rise and rise. These findings indicate that the cost of treating consumers in the public hospital system is going to rise substantially above what is currently anticipated by the government. Deloitte estimates that the additional operating costs accumulated over five years will be $3.8 billion—$1.4 billion in the fifth year alone.
These findings are a damning indictment on the measures included in these bills. All because of what? The inability of the ALP to manage Australia's finances responsibly—that is what this is all about. So what do they do? Since the election of the Rudd government in 2007, the billions of dollars of waste and government expenditure have been absolutely scandalous. We know the stories of the pink batt waste, the $900 cheques being paid to deceased persons and the school halls program, just to name a few. The Labor Party is desperate to find a way to deliver the budget surplus and turn around a $37 billion budget deficit. These proposals are nothing more than a lazy financial quick fix and are not based on any sound policy whatsoever.
Whenever the Labor Party finds itself in a mess, they revert to class warfare. We saw it in question time last week when the Prime Minister was asked about private health insurance. They are interested only in creating a class warfare situation and this is, of course, absolute nonsense. The only contribution the Labor Party has to make in this country is to play the politics of envy. In this case, this supposed attack on 'the rich' will end up hurting the low- and middle-income families in my electorate the most.
I will always stand up in this place for the constituents of the electorate of Brisbane. On behalf of the 89,920 people in my electorate who have private health insurance cover, I will oppose these bills.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (19:06): I rise to speak to the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and related bills that are before the House. The intent of the bill is to reduce the private health insurance rebate and increase the Medicare Levy Surcharge for those people who opt out of private health insurance, because it will become prohibitively expensive without the rebate.
It is a fundamental right of all Australians to expect that they will receive quality health care. It is the coalition's view that this is best done by giving people choice in the form of access to affordable health care providers, thereby relieving the pressure on the public health system. It is the coalition's view that access to health care should not be ideologically driven, and it should not be socially engineered. But that is precisely what is happening with this legislation.
There are a few issues here. One is that the Labor government is philosophically opposed to the notion of choice. The second is that the Labor government is scrambling to balance its books before this year's budget and it needs to find the dollars where it can. The third is the impact that this legislation will have on the hard-working people of my community of Longman.
When the coalition government introduced the private health insurance incentives that Australians currently enjoy it increased the ability of many households to choose. In fact, private health insurance coverage increased from 34 per cent of the population to 44 per cent. More Australians have more choice now. Those Australians who do not have private health insurance can access the public system.
But those of us who have gone through the public health system for care have seen firsthand the pressure it is under. There is no denying that much needs to be done to improve the public health system. It is fortunate that we are not holding our breath for delivery on former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's promise to fix the public health system and end the so-called blame game once and for all.
However, imagine what the pressure on the public health system is going to look like if Australians already labouring under soaring cost-of-living pressures decide to jettison their private health insurance because they simply cannot afford it. Some 2.4 million people will be affected by the increased cost of private health insurance. For those in the first income tier, premiums will increase by 14 per cent; for those in the second tier, premiums will increase by 29 per cent; and, for those in the third tier, premiums will rise by a huge 43 per cent. The Labor government claims that the impact these changes will have will be negligible. It claims that only 27,000 people will drop their private health insurance and that this will result in only 8,500 additional hospital admissions.
That is not what Medibank Private is saying and it is not what Deloitte is saying. Medibank Private has predicted that 37,000 of its members alone will drop their cover and a further 92,500 will downgrade. Deloitte's analysis indicates that 175,000 people will dump their private health insurance and 583,000 will downgrade in the first year alone. Over five years, it is expected that 1.6 million people will drop their private health insurance and 4.3 million people will downgrade their cover.
What does this mean for allied health services—physiotherapists, for example? There has been no talk about the impact this legislation will have on ancillary cover, which is so vital to ensuring the continuing viability of the allied health sector. This legislation represents a removal of choice for Australian families. It is ideologically driven by a government which does not support Australians being able to decide what is best for them. And for what possible benefit? Family budgets are under pressure and the public health system is under pressure. These measures are only going to make those pressures worse.
Apart from ideology, the Labor government could have only one other reason for introducing this legislation—it is desperate to claw back some of the money it has squandered in reckless spending on failed programs. To do so, the government is attacking private health insurance. What other explanation can there be for yet another litany of broken promises from this government? On 27 September 2007, just before the 2007 election, the current health minister said that Labor rejected what she called 'the Liberal scare campaign around the private health insurance rebates.' She said:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
It is crystal clear now—crystal clear that this was just another promise made just before an election and destined for the wastebasket of this Labor government's electoral opportunism.
What is really important to me is the effect that this legislation will have on my community of Longman. As I have said on numerous occasions in this place, life is getting harder for the families in my community and they are doing it really tough. The price of everything is going up—electricity, water, food, fuel, car registration and the public transport that so many working families in my community rely on to access the city where they work. It is getting more and more difficult for the hardworking members of my community to make ends meet.
Yet again, this high-taxing and recklessly spending Labor government is determined to make the lives of ordinary Australians harder. And this legislation will do just that. Many members of my community have contacted me, increasingly angry about the fact that this Labor government is not acting in their best interests. It is destroying confidence, spending recklessly and taxing and taxing and taxing.
But there is another issue here and that is the effect that an exodus from private health insurance will have on health services in my community. The hardworking medical staff at the Caboolture Hospital do a fantastic job, but they need more resources. Demands on local health services are already too high for the infrastructure that is available and demand will only increase with population growth. Waiting times, unrealistic nursing workloads, insufficient funding and the services available to mental health patients are among issues that are raised with me all the time.
During the last election campaign, issues around the Caboolture Hospital were among the greatest concerns expressed by the people of Longman. Just recently, a distressed father of a young baby wrote to me to say that he had had to wait for 12 hours before his child could be seen. The locals in my community deserve to be confident that, when their child has a raging ear infection after hours, they are not going to have to wait most of the night to be seen. When you are taken by ambulance to the hospital with an acute emergency, you should not be 'ramped' or redirected to another hospital across South-East Queensland.
According to the Department of Health and Ageing, the population in my region is expected to reach some 200,000 people. However, at the moment the underresourced Caboolture Hospital has 187 beds available and 21 bays in the emergency department. It is estimated that, to meet the demand of the growing population, 600 beds and 52 emergency bays will be required to service the region by 2026. According to the AMA the Caboolture Hospital is operating, on average, at over 100 per cent occupancy, showing significant overstrain of capacity. A safe occupancy rate is an average of only 85 per cent.
The expansion of the Caboolture Hospital is of fundamental importance to the people of Longman. Everyone in the community wants it to happen—the locals, the medical staff at the hospital. It is one of the keys to growing our region and making it a desirable place to live. But with this legislation, even if the people of Longman were to see a long awaited expansion of the hospital, the increased pressure placed on services because of the increased number of people no longer able to access private health care would negate the benefits of any expansion.
This legislation represents yet another betrayal of the trust of the Australian people. We are getting used to it now with this Labor government, but that does not make it right. The price of private health care will increase for so many families at a time when they are already struggling to balance their books. The exodus from private health care will place additional pressure on an already overburdened public health system. In my community, I know that the many families who have contacted me regarding soaring costs of living will jettison their private health cover because it will be unaffordable for them. The pressure on the Caboolture Hospital will become even worse than it already is, causing even more distress for my community. In conclusion, that is why, as a member of the coalition, I will not be supporting these bills.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (19:15): The fairer private health insurance legislation represents almost $2.8 billion being ripped out of the pockets of Australians who hold private health insurance. At the last election the Labor Party, in their dishonest ads, talked about the Leader of the Opposition taking $1 billion from health when it was actually a $10 billion increase in public hospital funding, but here we have a clear example of the Labor Party ripping out almost $2.8 billion, with their hands in the pockets of ordinary Australian families and individuals who are having a go, who are covering themselves and covering their families with private health insurance. Is this money going to health? No, it is just an inevitable consequence of the fact that the Labor Party have lost control of spending. They have wasted billions of dollars on pink batts and billions of dollars on school halls, and now, unfortunately, we are seeing broken election promises—a consequence of the fact that, as usual with a Labor government, they have lost control of their spending.
We on this side of the House understand that private health insurance plays a key role in reducing waiting lists and keeping pressure off the already struggling public hospital system. It allows people to have a choice of doctor, a choice of specialist, a choice of surgeon, a choice of anaesthetist and a choice of hospital. The coalition have always recognised this and will continue to fight for the role of private health insurance in our health system.
In a sense this is history repeating itself. When Labor were last in power the level of people covered by private health insurance plummeted from 50 per cent of the population to a low of 30 per cent in the mid-1990s. A number of Labor government decisions made during the second term of the Hawke-Keating government, between 1984 and 1986, had the effect of ripping money away from people who had private health insurance. As a result of those decisions Labor took when last in office we saw premiums rise by almost 40 per cent. The consequence was that people dropped out and as younger, fitter, healthier people dropped out the insured pool become more likely to claim and the premiums rose, in a vicious cycle. That required the introduction of the private health insurance rebate, along with lifetime health cover, in 1999, which arrested and reversed that fall in private health cover. In 2004 we came up with the proposal for increased rebates for people over 65 and people over 70 in recognition of the fact that many people on the age pension or part pensions and self-funded retirees were on fixed incomes and holding private health insurance. We needed to do this to make sure that private health insurance in Australia was on a sustainable footing.
Unfortunately, as I said before, Labor have a track record of dismantling private health. For the current Prime Minister's views on private health insurance there is no better guide than The Latham Diaries. That book shows how ideologically opposed to private health insurance the Prime Minister was when she was the Labor Party spokesperson for health. In fact, as we heard in question time today, the current Prime Minister gave an ironclad guarantee when she was shadow minister for health that the Labor Party would maintain the rebates. Her robust defence seemed to be that 'we did break that promise in 2007 but we took it to the 2010 election so then it was okay'. That ignores that the ironclad guarantee had an expiry date of not much more than 15 months into the Rudd government. I will come to that later.
Private hospitals treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia—3½ million patients in 2009-10. It covers the majority of elective surgery. Around 12 million Australians hold private health insurance—52.9 per cent of the population—and 45.6 per cent have hospital treatment cover. Of these people, any single earning over $83,000 per annum and any couple earning over $166,000 per annum will see their rebates reduced, with those on higher incomes receiving no rebate at all. These changes will mean a return to the old days of people dropping out of private health insurance left, right and centre. Around 2.4 million people will be directly affected by immediate increases in their premiums of 14 per cent, 29 per cent or 43 per cent, depending on their income tier. Deloitte has predicted that up to 1.6 million Australians will drop their cover over the next five years. They have also forecast that up to 4.3 million Australians will downgrade their cover over the next five years and that premiums will increase 10 per cent above what they otherwise would have. We will see an extra 845,000 Australians admitted to public hospitals and an extra $3.8 billion in additional recurrent costs for the public hospital system. It is worth noting that the government maintains that only 25,000 people will drop their private health insurance under its modelling compared to the 1.6 million modelled by the Deloitte analysis. There is quite a discrepancy there—the Deloitte analysis is 64 times the government's predictions. Medibank Private, the government owned insurer, claims that 37,000 of their members will drop private health insurance. They are about a third of the market in Australia. Just extrapolating the Medibank Private numbers, this measure will see more than 100,000 Australians drop private health insurance. This shows that the government's claim of only 25,000 is not realistic.
It is not just those on higher incomes who are going to be affected—5.6 million Australians with private health cover have annual household incomes of less than $50,000, and of those 3.4 million have annual household incomes of less than $35,000. Despite Labor's rhetoric, private health cover is not just for the rich. It has always been this way. People on age pensions, part pensions and self-funded retirees all maintain private health insurance. People on fixed incomes and those in low income households will be hurt most by this move. It is the part-pension recipients, self-funded retirees and young people who will be hurt the most from this. Young families who have responsibly taken out private health cover will be hurt. These people have all sacrificed to secure their own health and this government want to impose an extra financial burden when cost-of-living pressures are already so high.
These people may not be hit with a reduction in their rebate but they will be hit by premium rises as a secondary consequence of people dropping their private health cover. This is very simply a broken promise by the Labor government. These broken promises are stacking up, day by day. It is a betrayal of the electorate and a betrayal of the 12 million Australians with private health insurance.
Just four days out from the 2007 federal election, Kevin Rudd wrote to Dr Michael Armitage, the chief executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association, and said, 'Both my shadow minister for health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians. Labor will maintain lifetime health cover and the Medicate levy surcharge.' That was clear cut and black and white in writing.
It is clear now that this is just a first step for the Labor government. Labor have delivered four budgets since they were elected in 2007 and in every single budget they have proposed to rip money out of private health insurance or to slug people to take out private health insurance. My prediction is that if Labor have the chance, this will be just the first step. There will be many more bills like this where Labor will continue to undermine private health, to wind back the support for private health and to continue their relentless attack on the private health insurance rebates. In every budget delivered by the Labor Party, they have attacked private health insurance.
This bill has already been rejected by the Senate on two separate occasions, yet the government continue. They just cannot let it go. The Labor Party hate private health care. They pursue this as an ideological argument, without considering or even caring about the consequences. This government cannot manage money. They have wasted billions and billions of taxpayers' money—for example, pink batts; and the school halls, which schools did not want. In health, you need only look to the $650 million GP superclinics program, where there is no proof that a single hospital has seen a reduction in waiting times for patients arriving at the emergency department. Because of this endless waste by this reckless government, they are now looking to dismantle effective measures like the private health insurance rebates to plug the hole in their budget. For those opposite, this is not about the good health of Australians; it is about balancing the bottom line of their budget which they have lost control of.
The effect of this legislation on my electorate of Boothby is going to be very detrimental. There are 96,728 people in Boothby who are covered by private health insurance—72.3 per cent of voters on the roll have private health insurance, 63.3 per cent of voters hold hospital treatment insurance and 71.5 per cent hold general insurance for extras. There are two private hospitals in my electorate which are likely to be affected, Flinders Private Hospital and Griffith private hospital. Glenelg Community Hospital and Ashford Hospital sit outside my electorate, but are frequently used by the residents of Boothby.
Voters in Boothby will take a very dim view of the Labor Party's decision. This is a bad measure for Australia and a bad measure for my electorate. It is such a bad measure that over 2,000 residents in my electorate have petitioned to have the private health insurance rebate retained intact. It is a petition that I will be presenting later this week. The opposition have no choice but to oppose this measure, as we did in 2009 and in 2010.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (19:29): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011. As some of my colleagues have already stated, we are debating a betrayal of the Australian people, a betrayal of 11 million Australians who contribute to private health insurance arrangements. Forty-five per cent of households in my electorate of Solomon have private health insurance arrangements. Over 40,000 people are covered by these arrangements—40,000 Territorians who are being betrayed by the Gillard Labor government. This is the very same government that promised at the last election that there would be no carbon tax under the government the Prime Minister led. We all know where that promise ended.
As has been reported in media outlets by many commentators, Australia's healthcare system—and I refer to the balance in the relationship between public and private providers—is envied by many overseas countries. The Treasurer himself is on record with regular reference to how Australia is the envy of the world. It is apparent that our current healthcare system, if media commentators are to be believed, is in fact envied outside our shores. To refer to a turn of phrase distinctive to our vernacular, if it ain't broke then don't fix it.
Along with nearly 53 per cent of the country or some 12 million other Australians, I pay into private health insurance. My husband and I recognise the importance of having private health insurance. We recognise the importance of choice and we recognise the value of not relying upon and adding to an already overworked and stretched public health system. Further, we recognise that with an ageing population the reliance on health care will increase, as will the pressures on both the public and private providers. Statistics show that in the 2009-10 financial year private hospitals treated some 3.5 million patients across Australia, with those private hospitals responsible for the delivery of 64 per cent of elective surgeries.
Australians in general have an expectation for the delivery of certain services. Health care is one of those areas of expectation. An Ipsos survey this year found 64 per cent of the population believe that the $4.5 billion the government spends on the health rebate is a good use of taxpayer money. At present, 5.6 million Australians who pay private health insurance have an annual household income less than $50,000. Further, 3.4 million Australians with an annual household income of less than $35,000 pay into private health insurance—a further example of the value placed on this commodity by Australian citizens. Astute Australians, mums and dads, singles, the aged—in fact, Australians from all walks of life—all currently pay for private health insurance, yet the current federal Labor government wants to change this. Why? The system is not broke. The Deloitte analysis of the changes proposed by this government, if passed, are expected to see many of those astute Australians I have mentioned who pay into private health insurance funds withdraw from private health or downgrade their current level of cover. The government's own insurer, Medibank Private, predict that potentially 37,000 of their existing members alone will drop their cover and 92,500 will downgrade their cover, yet the Minister for Health has claimed that some 27,000 people across the entire sector could potentially withdraw from private health care—a considerable discrepancy. How can this government get it so wrong so often?
At present the existing private health rebate is 30 per cent with an increase to 35 per cent and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians. Proposed changes will see the introduction of three new income tiers. The first tier will see a reduction of the healthcare rebate from 30 per cent to 20 per cent for singles with an annual income of between $80,000 and $93,000 and families with a combined income of between $160,000 and $186,000. Aged Australians between 65 and 69 years will see their rebate reduced from 35 per cent to 25 per cent and for those aged 70 and over the rebate will fall from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. Without looking beyond the first tier, it is quite evident that this government assumes any single or family whose income exceeds the thresholds to be wealthy. I am reliably informed by my constituents that this is not the case.
Many in remote, regional and rural Australia—who already pay additional costs associated with supply and delivery of goods and services; who already pay dearly for childcare facilities, for basic food commodities for fuel; who go without the advantages associated with pricing competition similar to that within urban environments; and who pay mortgages or who pay rent—are far from rich. These average Australians continue to struggle and should not be considered wealthy. Within my own electorate of Solomon, many of the constituents I have spoken to on this issue are angry. I paraphrase: they are sick to death of being bashed by this Labor government on a daily basis for apparently being wealthy. When I say 'constituents', I refer to people from all walks of life, from small business operators to businesses who employ staff to contractors, from police officers to nurses, to public servants and teachers, all hardworking aspirants of this country. All of them sound the same drum and sing the same song. These proposed changes are not about improving our health services but about the inability of the current government to balance its books. Once again, it is the working backbone of the country who will be hurt—those who already give and continue to give towards every tax and levy imposed by a government in crisis.
This Labor government does not understand that healthcare costs vary from region to region, as do wages, but no consideration has been given to the high cost of living facing Territorians today. Many young families I know will be affected if this legislation is passed, and they are already struggling. Like me, the member for New England believes that this new health tax being imposed by the Gillard Labor government will be very bad for regional hospitals and in fact regional health services. What I do not understand is, if the member for New England believes this legislation will be bad for regional hospitals and regional Australians, why the member for Lyne has not arrived at the same conclusion. Then we have the member for Denison. In his electorate six out of 10 people have private health insurance. Surely, the message to him is quite clear: he must not support this legislation. This legislation will most certainly put pressure on public hospitals. It will absolutely take more money out of people's household budgets. At a time when Australians are already facing extra cost-of-living pressures, Prime Minister Gillard's new health tax is just not sustainable. This government has a history of broken promises. A case in point: in October 2007 the Chief Executive of the Australian Health Insurance Association, the Hon. Dr Michael Armitage, sought clarification from Labor's federal opposition leader in respect to its private health insurance policy. The response to Dr Armitage, signed by the then federal Labor leader, Mr Kevin Rudd, stated:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 percent general rebate and the 35 to 40 percent rebates for older Australians.
The response further included that Labor would maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance. What has happened in the interim? We have a government that finds itself in difficult economic circumstances largely of its own making, a government that started out with money in the bank and an economy strong and vibrant, an economy with stability. Today we see circumstances in which the government has spent billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to the point where we now have the fourth-largest deficit of any Australian government in history.
It is evident from the comments from my constituents that they clearly understand the impetus of why this government now wishes to tinker with the private health system—the envy of many other nations—not for the betterment of the system or as a value-add for the Australian taxpayer but for fiscal reasons. Simply put, the government is desperate to find money to try and fill the black hole which continues to expand. This is bad policy and it is the third time this parliament has considered this legislation. The first was in 2009. It was against a backdrop of commitment by the member for Griffith, the then federal Labor leader, in 2007 when he affirmed:
Federal Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process of approval of premium increases.
These three bills as introduced failed on that occasion. But here we are in 2012 again debating measures to alter the status quo in terms of private health insurance.
As I indicated earlier, many of my constituents are angry. The impact of the potential changes will impact the back pockets of most Australians with increased private health insurance premiums. The changes will impose an enormous compliance burden on the industry and individuals completing their tax returns. Private health insurers will have to make significant changes to their systems to be able to adjust premiums according to incomes. It is still not clear how the rebate will be administered under the new arrangements, especially where a person is not able to accurately predict their income for the current or the future financial year. Deloitte's analysis of the changes show that in the first year 175,000 people will be expected to withdraw from private hospital cover and a further 583,000 will downgrade. Over five years it is expected that 1.6 million will drop cover and 4.3 million will downgrade. These figures are absolutely alarming.
I would like to go back to the sentiments of my constituents. The following was sent to me by a constituent whose name is Lee. In her own words she said:
… "the harder I work the luckier I get". I want to share my journey in becoming the new "bashed and hated wealthy" My husband and I started our working life as bank teller and a refrigeration mechanic. We built a 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house in—
the suburbs of—
Adelaide, which was all we could afford. We raised 2 boys initially on 1 wage. My husband Chris had to take on additional work on weekends just to pay the mortgage and keep food on the table when interest rates reached 16% in the early 80's
We both worked to provide the boys with private school education. Family holidays were camping trips in an old camper trailer and when the boys left home we moved to the NT—
Northern Territory—
and started our own business
The journey of Lee and Chris is similar to that of many others that have worked hard, raised families, and understood the need to provide for themselves in retirement. In Lee's own words:
… this labor government hates us, it hates the fact we have some degree of financial comfort, it hates the fact we have private health insurance, it hates the fact we were prepared to work hard to provide the best education for our children. We are the people that got the hit from the flood levy, we are the people that are now to be hit by the health rebate means test, and next we will be the same people that will be hit by less money for private schools. We are small business people, we employ others, we pay tax, we look after ourselves in retirement, we are the backbone of this country and NOW UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT WE ARE HATED
How concerning is this sentiment? But this is exactly what this Labor government is doing: it is trying to bring back the class war, turning hardworking people that do have aspirations for a better life against those that do not.
In conclusion, this piece of legislation is absolutely not about a health policy. This is about a government trying to rip money out of people's back pockets as a patch-up for the waste and mismanagement that this government has undertaken over the last four years. This is bad policy and I will be voting against this piece of legislation as this bill is not about 'Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives'. This is another Labor broken promise. This is another betrayal of the Australian people.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (19:43): I rise to oppose the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and the suite of related bills. I do so on the basis that what is proposed means that there is a reduction—and I will not cite all the figures because they have been evident in all the speeches that I have been listening to during the course of the day—and it will impact on the health system. When I first entered parliament during the reform period under the Rudd government—and later in its continuation with the Gillard government—I saw incredible hope and opportunity for the reforms to be effective and for the private sector, through private sector funding, to be a key player in all of this and I saw that the 30 per cent levy would allow people the opportunity of moving between the health services provided within both public hospitals and the private sector. I give an example of St John of God in Perth that has robotic surgery for men who have prostate cancer. The cost of that is significantly high and the difference in price is covered by the private health insurance that is provided through membership and underpinned by the 30 per cent element that assists people to continue with their private health insurance.
The other thing that disappoints me is that A healthier future for all Australians talked about a continuity of care, access to specialist services and the ability to be part of making a choice about the type of healthcare service delivery you would access and the point at which you would access it. The National Partnerships Agreements that have been negotiated make reference to the fact that all Australians should have the opportunity of moving between the choices that exist for them, but they do not always have the capacity to pay. There are private and government hospitals that have differing services and certainly a significant number of the specialists tend to operate within the private health sector. If you are covered by private health insurance, your movement through the elective surgery waiting lists and surgery is enhanced because you are sometimes advised to take the opportunity to book into a private hospital in order to expedite that service. It means that you do not remain on a waiting list for a substantial period of time.
But the articles that have been appearing in the papers in recent times have made some very interesting points for this debate. The headline in the Australian today was 'Both sides failing the test on health'. It states:
Labor's policy lacks coherence but this should not let the opposition off the hook.
The article says:
First, as the public and private systems compete for health professionals, it would increase costs and reduce quality in the public system. Second, it will make the PHI even less affordable for low-income consumers, ensuring that we truly do end up with two healthcare systems: one for the better off, who will be forced to have private cover, and one for those with lower incomes, who will have to rely on the public hospitals.
Again, 'Gillard confident on health rebate' was a headline in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, 7 February:
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said yesterday taxpayers should not have to subsidise private health insurance for wealthy people and the government would continue discussions to get the changes passed.
… … …
Greens leader Bob Brown yesterday softened his party's resistance …
"We don't believe people should be penalised because they make the choice to go the public health system," he said. We are continuing to talk with the government.
I have been dismayed also by the fact that there have been a number of speakers on that side of the House who referred to a welfare or class system when it comes to the subsidisation of the health rebate, because to me it is not that. I think we have to be serious in considering that we want to encourage people to access the opportunities to reduce the burden on the public hospital system.
One of the continued debates I had when I worked in health, when we used to meet as an executive, concerned the choking of public hospitals with people who could not access the private health sector or access specialists whose time was principally involved with the private health sector. What worries me with this one is that, if these figures about the 1.6 million consumers dropping their health insurance or the number that fall in under each of the tiers are correct, we will see an increase in the number of people accessing the public hospital system. That in itself will increase the requirement for funding to meet those health needs when it could be covered within the private health sector.
In reading through the National Partnership Agreements, there are some provisions for increased funding where there are pressure points within the public health sector under each state and territory's jurisdiction and to negotiate a variation to those actual costs. I suspect that we will see an increase in requests for additional funding by states and territories. With that in mind, today's Hobart Mercury had the headline 'Private insurance bypass—Doctors warn rebate changes will up pressure on public hospitals'. The article states:
Tasmania's public hospitals will be hit with more patients under plans to means test the private health rebate, the Australian Medical Association says. Premiums are tipped to rise by up to $1000 a year for families from 1 July with Gillard government legislation to be voted on in coming days.
… … …
AMA Tasmanian president John Davis said …
"What we're already seeing is the Royal Hobart Hospital working at capacity at what should be a quiet time of the year."
If that is the case at a quiet time, then those proposed changes will have a significant impact on hospitals. I was down in Tasmania recently and I was speaking with a senior official from health who indicated that the quantum of money received to provide for their hospitals and for the types of services required for the public of Tasmania is not sufficient. On that basis, I suspect that we will see health ministers coming back to the discussions with the federal minister seeking to increase their share of the Commonwealth funding that would assist in the provision of the health care that we expect and take for granted in this country.
I know that the Minister for Health believes these changes will ensure that those with a greater capacity to pay will make a larger contribution towards the cost of their private health insurance. The government says it will ensure that government support for private health insurance remains fair and sustainable in the future. This is simply not the case. In my electorate of Hasluck, which is geographically and economically diverse, there are many people who are feeling the pressure points of increased costs of living. Those increased costs of living are impacting on their capability and capacity to pay their private health insurance premiums. I have had constituents say to me that they will be dropping the level of contribution they make to private health funds. To me this is a pity because when there is an illness of some magnitude which requires coverage of the full fee, or at least the gap, they will be deprived of that and their out-of-pocket expenses will certainly increase. The extra costs will hit families hard and drive more towards the public system. The public health system is already under strain and this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Increased living costs will be created not only by hospital costs and the payments needed for anaesthetists and some of the surgical procedures but also by the medications that will be required. Over 1½ million Australians, including thousands in Hasluck, will face significant increases in private health insurance costs. $1,000 might not sound a great deal to many in this chamber, but there will be people who will struggle to find that within their tight economic circumstances, particularly with the other added pressure from the banking sector where there is an increase in home interest rates.
Private hospitals treat 40 per cent of all patients in Australia and perform over 60 per cent of elective surgeries. What happens to the public system when these patients scrap their health insurance? The government owned insurer, Medibank Private, has predicted that 37,000 of its members alone will drop their cover and 92,500 will downgrade. This is considerably more than the 27,000 the minister has claimed will drop their cover throughout the entire sector. To me, this is another example of the Labor Party playing the politics of envy and punishing those who are able to take financial responsibility for their health care instead of having the Liberal Party economic philosophy of reward for effort and providing people with choice and financial opportunity.
Many of the people who have taken out private health insurance in Hasluck are not super-rich as those opposite would have you believe. In the near future, you will hear more political-speak coming out of the Labor Party--things like, 'They are the rich; why should they get subsidies for private health?' This is social engineering coming to the fore yet again. These people are already paying for the services of private health insurance and this takes a significant load off our public health system. We will all have seen articles over a period of time in which health systems and jurisdictions talk about the burden of cost in the delivery of health services. I have had firsthand experience of actually working in the health sector at a senior level and I know the strain many in this system are under. These changes will just make things worse.
The phasing down of the healthcare rebate to nil would see the need for nearly 200,000 hospital bed days to be created. One million extra patients are expected to flood the public health system. The Gillard government is acting out of desperation to balance its books and is doing so at the expense of many hardworking Australians and people in my electorate of Hasluck. Instead of creating hope for the people of Australia that if they work hard and pay their way they will be rewarded, it penalises the people who are paying their way.
Cost of living, as I have said, is a serious issue in my electorate. The so-called luxuries will be jettisoned, and I fear that private health insurance will be one of them. The cost-of-living pressures will only get worse under the carbon tax regime. This wasteful government is introducing another burden. The deceit shown by this government knows no bounds. Every new tax or levy that is introduced chips away at the household budget. People in Hasluck are struggling and this typical tax-and-spend approach to economics is damaging to the social fabric of this country. I would ask the Minister for Health to come to Hasluck and talk in a forum directly to families that will be hit by the amendments to the legislation. Previous governments have rejected these changes, and I call on this government not to dig its heels in and to stop this lunacy.
What makes this worse is that the Prime Minister previously stated in opposition that she would not seek to remove the rebate, yet when it is politically convenient she once again goes back on her word. The former Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, and the former Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, have both gone to great pains previously to say they would never support this move. What has changed? This is the third time the parliament has considered this legislation. It was introduced in the last parliament despite explicit promises at the 2007 election that:
… Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all the existing Private Health Insurance rebates.
That was said in a media release by Nicola Roxon on 26 September 2007.
I call on the Independents to actually stick up for the people in their electorates and vote down these amendments, which will hurt everyday Australians. I think we have the basis of an incredible health reform agenda that is providing a wide range of health outcomes and improvements for Australians, consistent with the objectives of the national partnership agreement and the National Health Reform Agreement. I would rather see the strengthening of those and not their diminution through the impact of this legislation in reducing the rebate that is currently given to all Australians. I oppose this legislation.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being almost 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Native Title
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (19:58): on indulgence—I wish to add to an answer I gave in question time today. In question time today I answered a question from the member for O'Connor concerning native title. In my answer I indicated that the Western Australian Premier had not personally raised with me matters related to native title compensation. The Premier wrote to me on 14 April last year regarding financial assistance for native title compensation and settlements. I wrote to the Premier on 23 May last year noting that in 2001 the Howard government made an offer to the states and territories in relation to native title compensation, but a shared costs arrangement was not agreed to. This exchange of correspondence was reported in the Australian newspaper on 6 January this year. As I stated earlier today, despite my quite frequent contact with the Premier of Western Australia, the Premier has not taken the opportunity to raise this matter with me personally, and by that I mean face to face.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
National Asbestos Awareness Week
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (19:59): I 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.
I first gave notice of this motion during National Asbestos Awareness Week, but because of the way in which the business of the House is conducted it has only just now come up for debate. I am pleased that it is now before the House and that people from all sides are listed to speak on it.
The mining of asbestos is akin to subjecting workers to a possible death sentence, as is the export of asbestos. It is something that I simply cannot understand, with the knowledge that we have, as I cannot understand why some countries continue to mine and export it. Canada and Russia are on the list of supporters of the asbestos trade. There is actually a town called Asbestos in Canada and a town called Asbest in Russia, the latter being something I have previously raised in this House.
It is hard to know where to start, because so much needs to be done and so much needs to be said. There is the matter of the large amounts of asbestos we have in our public and private buildings and indeed in our own homes. Home renovators are more at risk than ever because so many people are now doing home renovations; it is a popular and good thing to do, but some people would not even be aware they are dealing with asbestos. Domestic residences or premises are also largely unregulated, although there are some regulations in that area.
At a national level all types of asbestos are banned for use in Australia. Further, since 2003 it has been illegal to import, store, supply, sell or use such materials. The management of asbestos and related issues is a matter for each jurisdiction in our federal system. There are health and safety aspects and workplace issues within respective jurisdictions. There are laws at state and territory levels about the handling and removal of asbestos and strict penalties for noncompliance. However, there are some gaps across all jurisdictions.
The New South Wales Ombudsman prepared a report entitled Responding to the asbestos problem: the need for significant reform in New South Wales, dated November 2010. The report stated:
… there is no single government agency responsible for coordinating the management and containment of asbestos … there are gaps in asbestos legislation and funding to deal with these issues is inadequate.
The report further pointed out that local government was the first point of contact for the community and said that many lacked knowledge and understanding of their role in the regulation of asbestos. I can understand that, but we all have to come to grips with this massive problem that really is of epidemic proportions. I want to say that I am not targeting a particular state or territory jurisdiction. It is just that New South Wales is the state I live in and the one that I read most about.
I would also like to add that when Councillor Jenny Dowell, the Mayor of Lismore City Council, saw that I had this matter listed for debate she sent me an email saying that it was 'excellent' that I had done so. She said:
Local government is at the forefront of managing approvals for the removal and disposal of asbestos. From time to time we are faced with illegal dumping et cetera but the biggest impact is that of disease and death for workers and the thousands of home renovators.
That was the point at which I started. I further note that the Ombudsman's report stated that it looked at 152 council websites and found no consistency in the information provided to the public. Again, I can understand that this is a difficult area.
My motion lists a whole range of things. Firstly, and importantly, it notes the occurrence of National Asbestos Week, which has now passed but which was current when I gave notice of the motion. It recognises the proactive actions of the Australian government in this area and commends the Australian government for a number of really good measures that have been put in place. We are tackling this nationally. It also needs to be done at state level. Some of the occupational health legislation can help in that area. There is also the international aspect, because we know that asbestos is mined in various places. We know that its use is still huge in the Asia-Pacific region, which is our region, and that asbestos is exported.
I would like to commend the Parliamentary Group on Asbestos Related Disease that was set up in this place. A lot of members on all sides take part in that, including ministers and shadow ministers. We all attend because we know that this is something we really have to grapple with. I commend Senator Lisa Singh for setting up that group and also the honourable member for McMillan, who supports this group. When he spoke on the night on which the group met he thanked Senator Singh—giving credit where credit was due, in that it was her initiative. The guest speaker was journalist/writer Matt Peacock, who is a leading light in bringing to public attention the dangers of asbestos. Decades ago he published material on this matter, including on the problems associated with asbestos at the James Hardie mine in Baryulgil, in my seat of Page. There was considerable trauma and disease, and that is ongoing, because asbestos problems are not something that disappear overnight. As recently as 8 November 2011 Matt Peacock reported a telling and deadly documentary on Foreign Correspondent about India's use and importation of asbestos from Canada. So my motion lays out some of the good action that has been taken and will continue to be taken. It really speaks for itself. We are also working to get a lot of areas in order. There was a loan agreement with New South Wales—and I pay tribute to the honourable member for Charlton, who did a lot to bring that to the public's attention and who helped to make that happen; there were funds for the Asbestos Disease Research Institute; and there was the ratification of the ILO Convention concerning Safety in the Use of Asbestos and the leadership regarding the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.
I support a worldwide ban on asbestos—full stop. It is just something that needs to be left in the ground. I note that in some countries where they say it is asbestos free, if there is a one per cent inclusion of asbestos in it, they can still have that branding on it. Some of the things that we need to continue to do are to raise awareness of asbestos hazards, build alliances with like-minded countries and pursue further restriction on asbestos by listing chrysotile asbestos in annex III of the Rotterdam convention. We also need to build capacity in developing countries, assist with developing domestic asbestos management regimes with the removal and lobby countries which oppose or do not actively support asbestos removal to change their positions.
At the ALP National Conference, where I was a delegate, we did a number of things to change the platform. We said we wanted Australia to continue to lead international calls for a global treaty to ban the use of and trade in asbestos. We will host an international conference in 2012, the Global Alliance Against the Asbestos Hazard, in collaboration with the ILO and other like-minded organisations, to build support for international action on asbestos. We also hope that AusAID can help develop an aid program which supports better education about the risks posed by asbestos.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (20:10): I second the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House notes the interest of the member for Corangamite as well.
Mr CHESTER: It is a pleasure to join the debate this evening. I commend the member for Page for her motion on National Asbestos Awareness Week and also for her advocacy work in issues associated with safety surrounding the handling of asbestos products and the possible spread of asbestos related disease. I recently had the opportunity to witness the member's advocacy work firsthand when she was in Sale as the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which was looking into opportunities to expand the Sale RAAF base. She took the opportunity to question the officials from the Department of Defence about ensuring that whatever work was going to take place there would be safe in protecting of the workers and subcontractors on the site as well as the service personnel there. She has a very real commitment and I admire her passion and determination in this particular area.
The motion is quite an extensive one, as the previous speaker indicated. I will focus my comments tonight on the key points as they affect Gippslanders. As a bit of a personal perspective, from my dealings with people in my community and also with my own family, the issue of asbestos related disease is very real for many people in Gippsland. From my own experience, my father was a plumber, and he often used to tell the story about how, as a young bloke and an apprentice, he and his mates would bundle up the loose product and throw it at each other. It was a bit of fun after work, I think, for the boys, the young apprentices, on the job, not knowing of course the risks that they were exposing themselves to. My own father died of lung cancer four years ago, and I cannot help wondering whether some of that was related to his exposure. It did not help that a lot of young boys in those days smoked a lot. We now know the risks associated with smoking and with exposure to asbestos, and it could not have helped those young fellows.
At an industry level, the exposure to asbestos is a key concern for workers rights across the Gippsland and La Trobe Valley area. We have many people who are currently employed, or who were previously employed, in heavy industries, particularly associated with the power sector. We are fortunate in Gippsland to have a group known as the Gippsland Asbestos Related Disease Support Group, which I will refer to more extensively in a few moments time.
With these factors in mind, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion as put to the House tonight by the member for Page, nor in supporting the Parliamentary Group on Asbestos Related Disease, which the previous speaker also referred to and whose launch coincided with National Asbestos Awareness Week. I congratulate Senator Lisa Singh and my neighbour in Gippsland, the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent, for co-chairing that group. The group is designed to raise awareness of asbestos related disease, and on the evening of its formation Mr Broadbent commented that Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos related disease in the world, with nearly 10,000 recorded cases of mesothelioma since records began in the 1980s. He also indicated at the time that there is an increasing rate of diagnosis in women, as we begin to experience what they are describing as a third wave of sufferers from the home renovation era, which the member for Page also referred to. I quote one thing that Russell Broadbent said on the night:
Too many lives have been affected by asbestos related disease and together we must work together to address the asbestos-related issues. PGARD aims to be a conduit between the local community and the parliament on asbestos related issues.
I congratulate Senator Singh, Mr Broadbent and the member for Page for taking that bipartisan approach to what is a very serious issue in our community.
The scale of the problem facing Australia and the rest of the world should not be underestimated. The motion before the House recognises that Australian citizens suffer one of the highest rates of asbestos related disease in the world, and the widespread use of these products has been described to me by people in my electorate as something of a ticking time bomb on industrial sites and in residential homes throughout the nation. Even tonight, as I was watching the ABC evening news, there was reference to asbestos being found today on the foreshore at Kingston. In this case it was bonded material, and the authorities are very confident that it can be disposed of effectively and efficiently, but it indicates that this is an ongoing issue that we are going to be dealing with for many years to come.
The biggest risk, and the member for Page referred to it, is the home renovation sector, and in particular the ignorance of the potential threat that is out there. I am concerned that many Australians will be putting their own health at risk and the health of their families, their neighbours and their work colleagues if they are unaware of the potential risk posed by asbestos in the workplace or at home. We have made some massive improvements in the past decade and beyond in the identification of asbestos in the workplace. The OH&S laws that have been brought into place have been useful in that regard, but it is in the home environment that I think the biggest risk lies for us. If a home was built or renovated in the years leading up to 1985 it is most likely that it will contain asbestos somewhere. I understand that if it is left undisturbed it does not normally pose any health risk to anyone, and apart from monitoring it and perhaps painting it to make sure it remains in a stable condition there is no cause for homeowners to be alarmed. But where it does pose a significant health risk is in circumstances where it is disturbed during renovations or in demolition of houses where the asbestos fibres can be released into the air and inhaled. That can lead to asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
When I was a young fellow my father was one who used to occasionally take on contracts to demolish homes. As young boys we would go out there and join in the demolition. It was great fun getting the sledgehammer into the walls, the AC sheeting and everything else. I am sure that we should have been wearing more safety equipment than the gloves and the pair of old boots that we were issued with for the job. It is these sort of things where, through ignorance, well-meaning people who do not understand the risks they are taking have perhaps participated in jobs—in my case a bit of home demolition work, but I am sure in other cases it will be people doing renovation in the future—where they do not really know what they are dealing with.
It is good that we have come a long way since those days, but I want to go back to what I referred to a little earlier about the work of a group in my electorate called the Gippsland Asbestos Related Disease Group. I am not sure that every community is as fortunate as we are in Gippsland to have a group like this working on a daily basis to raise awareness and to help educate the public about the potential risks that are out there. GARDS, as it is known, plays a very important role in my community: firstly, in raising awareness of the risk of exposure to asbestos, but also in advocating on behalf of the sufferers. The work includes GARDS volunteers offering a telephone support service and drop-in service at their office. It organises meetings where guest presenters come along and let people know what the potential risks are and providing information on support services that are out there. The advocacy work is perhaps focused more on improving health support services and compensation arrangements to asbestos sufferers and their families.
I have recently had the opportunity to meet with the chief executive of GARDS, a lady by the name of Vicki Hamilton, who was here in Canberra for the launch of the parliamentary group. She works tirelessly to represent the interests of the sufferers in my community and their families. As we all recognise, the asbestos diseases are particularly insidious and they really do have an impact on the entire family. So it is important that the work of GARDS recognises the impact it does have on families. Vicki is a lady who has enormous compassion for the people she is working with and working for, but she is also determined to make a difference and reduce the incidence of further outbreaks of asbestos related diseases. She is a very strong advocate and a fierce champion. It is fair to say you would not want to mess with a lady like Vicki Hamilton. When she gets something in her mind that she is going to do, she does it to the best of her ability. We are fortunate to have her working on the asbestos related diseases support group in Gippsland.
The important point to note as we debate the motion tonight is that there is a concern that the rate of malignant mesothelioma is expected to rise from 2012 to 2020. It is also worth reinforcing, in the opportunity I have here tonight, to anyone who may be listening, that there is no safe exposure to asbestos fibres. Part of the role that we have here in this parliamentary group, and also the role that Vicki Hamilton has in my electorate with the Gippsland group, is in educating people. There are a lot of home renovators out there at the moment. They are mainly men and it is fair to say that blokes are not always the best in looking after their own health. They perhaps have an attitude that it will not happen to them or a bit of a crash or crash-through approach to home renovation job. So it is important that the education campaign that does roll out is understood by everyone—and I mean everyone—so the wives, girlfriends and children might also encourage their loved ones to take the appropriate precautions.
There are a couple of points to remember. One is that if you do not know what the product is you are dealing with in the home environment you should always assume that it does have some element of asbestos in it and take the appropriate precautions. It is also worth reminding people that they can get a licensed person to dispose of the product or seek advice from groups like the asbestos related disease support group in my electorate, which has developed things like the 'Asbestos in the home removal kit'. That is another very positive step that other communities could take. It is an innovation from the Gippsland group which has been very well received in my community. But the best advice of all is that, if you are not confident in doing the job safely yourself, call in the experts. They come in at about the price of any other qualified tradesperson, but what price do you put on your family's health and on your own health.
Safe disposal is a very key point and there are many cases still occurring in our community of dumping of asbestos products. It is outrageous to think that someone would expose others in the community to a risk like that, but there are many cases of that. I am looking forward to continuing to work with my colleague the member for McMillan and others like the member for Page and Senator Singh to make sure we do whatever we can in this place to reduce the incidence of asbestos related diseases in the community.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (20:20): I am pleased to follow the member for Gippsland and join the member for Page in speaking on this motion tonight noting Asbestos Awareness Week. I would also pay tribute to a couple of activists on this issue from my own electorate of Throsby in New South Wales, in particular our local branch member Jim David, who spoke very passionately on this matter at a branch meeting that I attended a few weeks ago and urged me to raise this matter in parliament. I do so willingly. Shirley Sheed, who is a local activist from Port Kembla and a very strong activist in the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia has been putting her time and energy behind this issue for many, many decades.
The battle for justice for victims of asbestos diseases is very important to me personally, and I have been engaged in it for many years as well. Like many Australians and many people in this place, I have lost friends to the horrible disease of mesothelioma and have family members who suffer from asbestos related diseases. I am proud to have followed in the footsteps of those before me in the Australian union movement who have been campaigning on asbestos since the 1960s. As I have already noted in this place, in 2005 I had the great honour to go to work with the ACTU as part of their legal team in negotiating with James Hardie and their representatives in the campaign and ultimate settlement to bring some justice to the sufferers who have asbestos related diseases. Campaigning for justice against James Hardie, a company that sought to abdicate both their responsibilities in relation to asbestos products and their social responsibilities, was a defining experience in my life. I met many great Australians, including Bernie Banton and his wife and many other brave Australians who campaigned hard to get justice for themselves while they were suffering from those terrible diseases.
Tonight I want to talk briefly about the point that is raised in paragraph (7) of the member for Page's motion. It is about the international situation, and Canada in particular. It is a great shame that, while asbestos is virtually banned for use in Canada, that country continues to trade in white asbestos to India and indeed accounts for about 95 per cent of the international trade in asbestos products. In doing this, Canada relies on the fact that asbestos use is legal in India. What we know about the export of asbestos from Canada and other countries is that the products are being exported not to the First World but rather to developing countries, countries that can least afford the health impacts of asbestos related diseases now and for many decades into the future.
The member for Gippsland mentioned the threat that is posed to home renovators. You do not have to walk far in my suburb to see houses, sheds, garages, fences and roofs made out of asbestos and asbestos products. I have a great fear that the long tail of asbestos related diseases will be with us for some time to come. I echo the concerns and sentiments of the member for Gippsland and the member for Page in this regard. Accordingly, I think it is a great shame that the Canadian government continues to support the asbestos industry, because we know that each day that the export of asbestos related products goes on prolongs the suffering and the disease that is created when those products are put into the economy and into people's suburbs.
It is a catastrophic situation for the people of India. The true costs of asbestos are being hidden from the people of India. If the hidden medical costs were properly taken into account, there is no way that asbestos would continue to be seen and used as a cheap building material. For these reasons, I am proud to add my voice in support of this motion and to urge all other members in this place to support it and to get behind the recently formed Parliamentary Group on Asbestos Related Disease, to raise awareness and advocacy and urge further action, parliamentary and otherwise, to fight the scourge that is asbestos and asbestos related disease. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (20:25): I rise tonight to support this motion on Asbestos Awareness Week, to congratulate the member for Page for putting it together and to support the comments from the members for Gippsland and Throsby. This is a rather long motion, but there are a few clauses which I think need to be highlighted. One is clause (2), which says that the House:
… 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;
Those bans actually came in in 1991, when we had a complete ban on the use of asbestos in Australia. The only thing I can say to that is that it is a bit disappointing that it took so many years to do. The dangers of asbestos were known decades before 1991, yet asbestos continued to be used throughout the seventies and eighties, which means that no doubt in years to come we will continue to see a lot of people suffering from asbestos related diseases. The bans should have been brought in decades earlier, when we knew the problems that we had.
The other part of a motion that I think needs commenting on is paragraph (3)(e), which says that the Australian government supports:
… 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 of asbestos materials in the workplace;
As other members have commented, there is a lot of home renovation going on. A lot of people are working on renovating old houses, and it is very important that steps are taken and safety standards are put into place to make sure that these people are not exposed to asbestos.
Asbestos diseases have been found to take 20 years to develop and they affect people from all walks of life. It is not only people who were directly exposed to industries and workplaces where there was a lot of asbestos; many people who have had no contact with industry or with building sites have still succumbed to asbestos related diseases. Clause (5) of the motion states that the government:
… 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;
It is tragic that we have lost so many people so far to asbestos related diseases, but unfortunately it appears that for the next 20 years we are still going to have this problem going on. Therefore it is important that the government continues to support research in this field and treatment and care for people who have suffered.
In my electorate of Hughes, Newbridge Heights Public School recently had an issue with asbestos from a fire that occurred 14 years ago at the school. A lot of the building rubble from the fire was actually buried on the school grounds. We should thank one of the local residents, a parent called Linda Lambourne, who was vigilant in exposing this and bringing it to the school's attention that asbestos had been found in the schoolyard. Hopefully the remediation work being undertaken on that will make sure there are no problems at Newbridge Heights.
We should learn from the mistakes and the time that it took us to bring in proper regulations to regulate asbestos, especially in view of the many other types of pollution we have in our environment today, particularly air pollution and the particulate matters known as PM10 and PM2.5. It was interesting that a recent national environment protection of ambient air quality study in Australia noted:
Overall, the results of health reviews show that there were significant health effects at current levels of air pollution in Australian cities. These findings indicate that the current standards are not meeting the requirements of adequate protection of human health. There is evidence that these standards should be revised to minimise the impact of air pollution on the health of the Australian population. The finding is strongly supported by all stakeholders throughout the consultation process.
I was very surprised to discover that currently in Australia we have no compliance standards for the particulate matter PM2.5 and we have no annual average standards for PM10. These are things we need to look at, especially in areas of Western Sydney. We need to make sure that everything we are doing in government is to give the best quality air to our residents and to bring Australian standards up to international standards for particulate matter. We do not want to see a repeat of the mistakes we have made in the past with the time it has taken to bring in thorough regulations on asbestos. (Time expired)
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (20:30): I commend the member for Page for bringing this motion before the House. I also acknowledge the contributions made by all of the other speakers so far. It is good to see that this motion does have cross-party support.
In 2005, a memorial was unveiled at Pitman Park in the City of Salisbury in memory of the people who suffered or died from asbestos related illnesses. It was established by the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia. Each year in November, a memorial service is held at the site and as part of the service a white wooden cross is placed in the ground adjacent to the memorial with the name of each of the people who have died because of asbestos since the Asbestos Victims Association began keeping records. Each year I attend the service; each year there are more white crosses in the ground.
In most cases, those who died did so from work related illness or family members who were indirectly exposed to the deadly asbestos fibres from the work clothes being brought home. Sadly, thousands more will die in the coming years even though, since 31 December 2003, it has been illegal in Australia to use, reuse or sell any products containing any form of asbestos. For many, it was too late. The fibres were in their bodies and they now face a slow and painful death from an insidious disease. What makes the issue more controversial is that asbestos continued to be used for well over 100 years after its dangers were first exposed. The owners of asbestos mines and those who manufactured asbestos products were not merely negligent—they knowingly promoted a dangerous product.
Thanks to the efforts of so many people around the world, the use of asbestos has now been banned in many countries. However, the asbestos fight is only the tip of the iceberg. Firstly, asbestos continues to be used in disadvantaged countries where people are poorly educated. Secondly, the asbestos story applies to many other commonly used products where manufacturers are aware of the risks but the evidence is inconclusive. From tobacco companies to chemical companies, and manufacturers of IT equipment, serious concerns have been raised about the long-term use of other commonly used products. At least with tobacco, the health warnings are very clear and for most people it is a matter of choice with the full knowledge of the risk.
The worldwide asbestos campaign is about the responsibilities of governments and regulators. It is about the ethics of industry. It is about justice and injustice. As with the life of the legendary cricketer Basil D'Oliveira, whom we debated in the House earlier today, where the more profound impact of his life was not on cricket but on the issue of racial discrimination, the asbestos campaign is about the exploitation of human life for greed and profit.
In respect to that, I join in the comments of other speakers that I too am astounded at the Canadian government's decision to refuse to allow the addition of chrysotile asbestos fibres to the Rotterdam Convention. Chrysotile asbestos, otherwise known as white asbestos, is a major export product of that country. Whilst I could understand a private company wanting to pursue its operations, I cannot understand a government being part of the export of that product. This is a point made in the newsletter of the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia—that very same Canadian government that is agreeing to export this product is simultaneously removing asbestos from its 1928 parliamentary building. The convention is a multilateral treaty to promote shared responsibilities in relation to the importation of hazardous chemicals. Canada is the only G8 country objecting to the listing. I believe that this government ought to do what it can to encourage Canada to support the listing.
Lastly, I pay tribute and commend the work of Terry Miller, Kat Burge, Pam Sandys and Tony Henstridge who are the volunteers who man and support the Asbestos Victims Association in South Australia. Their tireless work in support of the victims, the victims' families, their advocacy against the use of asbestos and their community education and awareness campaigns are an absolute credit to them. From my experience of working with them and seeing what they do, their work is truly invaluable, and I thank them for it.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (20:35): I rise to speak to the motion in front of the House tonight. The motion is:
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.
The one aspect of this motion I will just touch on tonight is the issue of our bilateral relationship with Canada. I note the special relationship we have with Canada. We cooperate very well with Canada in multilateral forums and we have a strong economic and trade relationship. Canada is Australia's 21st largest merchandise trading partner, with the two-way trade totalling $3 billion in 2010. We also have a mutual investment relationship.
So, in supporting the call for the Australian government to make strong diplomatic efforts to convince the Canadian government, I also call on the government to make sure it does this in a way which reflects the very strong relationship we have with Canada. They are our ally. We have a very good relationship which dates back many years. I therefore think that we should use science, facts and our experience with asbestos in Australia to convince them of the path we think we should go down. That is the type of diplomatic activity we should use. Canada has been a longstanding friend and ally of our country and I think that if we go to them with a very sound argument—one based on the science and the health facts arising from our experience here in Australia—down the track we will be able to get Canada to understand where we are coming from. (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:40): I also would like to thank the member for Page for moving this motion and for reminding us all how important it is that the Australian government continues to call on Canada to ratify the listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. We in Australia know asbestos very well. In the 15 years after World War II, 52 per cent of all houses built in the state of New South Wales were made of fibro. In my electorate, where building was intense at that time in Wentworthville, Pendle Hill and Toongabbie, there are some local government areas where 90 per cent of the houses are made from fibro.
Australia suffers one of the highest rates of incidence of mesothelioma—the worst of the asbestos related diseases—in the world, with estimates of 13,000 cases by 2020 and a further 40,000 to 45,000 cases of asbestos related cancer. This is a dreadful disease which hangs around in the community and shows itself some 40, 50 or 60 years after exposure to the fibres.
Many in my community think of India as part of the family—their mums and their dads and their cousins still live there. So to think that a country like India, which is growing so fast, is continuing to use this product and that it is being exported there from a country where you could not even give it away—Canada—is truly shocking. The use of asbestos in India has increased by more than 300 per cent in the last couple of decades. A very wise man, Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, said it quite well when he said:
… the burden of industrial pollution reaches the developing world much faster than the fruits of industrial growth.
There can be no doubt that, as the global demand for asbestos decreased, there were companies which aggressively sought out countries where the building boom was on but where the health and worker safety regulations were still developing. Such countries will face a future very similar to ours. We in the world who have handled asbestos for many years should know better. We should not doubt how profoundly appalling some of the behaviour of asbestos producers has been in the past and how appalling it continues to be.
The world has known about the dangers of asbestos for many, many years. It was known by the Greeks, and Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder noticed that women who wove asbestos into cloth commonly displayed a sickness of the lungs. The first modern registered death from asbestos exposure was in 1899—40 years before James Hardie opened its plant in my electorate. It was a 33-year-old man who died from asbestos related disease. He had worked in an asbestos textile factory for 14 years and, of the nine other people who worked with him, he was, when he died, the only one to have survived until then. In 1906, the French made recommendations that asbestos workplaces should be ventilated. In 1916, Prudential Insurance in the US decided that they would no longer give life insurance to asbestos workers. In 1917 and 1918, there was more research in the US and James Hardie set up their plant—without appropriate worker safety practices. The first diagnosis of asbestosis was in 1924, following the death of a 33-year-old woman who had been working with asbestos since she was 13. A subsequent study showed that 25 per cent of asbestos workers in England had lung disease. The first workers compensation claim for asbestos was in 1927, involving a foreman in a textile plant in Massachusetts. By the thirties, when James Hardie opened its plant in Australia, a significant amount of scientific knowledge had been accumulated about asbestos-related disease. The US made asbestosis a work compensatable disease in 1941—many years ago, and yet we still have Canada selling this material to developing countries. The first Australian case of mesothelioma was a miner from Wittenoom—in 1962. Later research identified over 658 cases leading up to 1979. James Hardie put a warning on its product in 1978 and stopped producing it in 1982 but continued to sell its stockpile until 1987—appalling behaviour. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (20:46): Awareness weeks are part and parcel of the national health calendar, and that is a good thing. They bring what is often much-needed publicity to what in many cases were once little known or thought about ailments and illnesses. By highlighting the causes, symptoms and where possible cures of certain conditions, the general public, media outlets, parliaments and most importantly sufferers and their families can come to know more about some of the health-related afflictions which beset our modern world. Importantly, understanding illnesses and appreciating just what people affected by them are going through goes a long way towards improving health services to combat them. That is what these awareness weeks are all about.
These days, one of the most important awareness weeks is that pertaining to asbestos. In Australia, bans continue on the production and use of asbestos and strict controls are in place for the removal and disposal of existing material. This is how it must be. A $5 million Commonwealth grant has been allocated to support the Asbestos Disease Research Institute Bernie Banton Centre. This is appropriate and commendable. Funding has also been provided for the new Australian Mesothelioma Registry, launched in 2010 to compile more accurate and detailed information on mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases. This takes in support for the harmonisation of health and safety legislation which for the first time will put in place a uniform framework for the minimisation of exposure, the removal of asbestos and the management of asbestos materials in the workplace.
There are also the provisions of the loan agreement with the New South Wales government to ensure asbestos victims and their families continue to receive payments through the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund. This fund is unfortunately going to be increasingly necessary into the future. As well, there is 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.
Ongoing research is vitally important. All too sadly, Australia suffers one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the world, with the effects of asbestos mining still being suffered by many. More is the pity that in the Asia-Pacific region where, despite what we know here in Australia and as is well documented worldwide, asbestos remains an attractive commodity because of its low cost compared to other comparable building materials. According to the Victorian government's Better Health channel, Australia has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world. This is due to the high rate of asbestos use and mining over many decades.
Since the early 1980s more than 10,000 individuals have succumbed to mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos and, according to cancer experts, an additional 25,000 Australians are expected to die over the next forty years from this painful and crippling disease. To put it into perspective, in 2007 nearly 600 people were diagnosed with mesothelioma in Australia. Of these new cases, 81 per cent were men. The figures also showed that, as suspected, deaths occurred most often in the age range encompassing those individuals who were 75 to 79 years old. More than 70 per cent of the mesothelioma deaths were among men and women over the age of 65. National trends from 1997 to 2007 show that deaths from mesothelioma steadily increased. Experts suggest that the number of deaths from mesothelioma will peak somewhere between 2014 and 2021, depending on the models used.
Mesothelioma is a rare and often fatal cancer of the mesothelium, the membrane which covers most of the body's internal organs. Mesothelioma can develop decades after exposure to asbestos. Where it cannot be surgically removed, this condition is incurable. In some cases just a whiff of asbestos dust can prove ultimately fatal. Symptoms or signs of mesothelioma may not appear until 20 to 50 years, or more, after exposure to asbestos. Studies show that the Australians most at risk of developing mesothelioma include trades such as carpenters, construction workers, electrical engineers, insulation installers, miners, plumbers and shipbuilders.
At Batlow in my Riverina electorate not only did a devastating hailstorm on 9 November last year wipe out the apple crop and strip trees to the extent they will take years to recover but also a major processor now faces asbestos-related damage to a warehouse. This has real and lasting financial implications for this town, for which apples are almost its sole economic means. Hopefully assistance will be forthcoming to Batlow as it tries to build a future after being hit with more setbacks than could be deemed fair. I commend the motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): The time for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Iran
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (20:51): I 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.
The subject of human rights in Iran was last debated in this place on 15 November 2010 after a notice of motion was introduced by the member for Blair, Shane Neumann. Since that time the number, range and frequency of serious human rights violations has increased. In 2011, Iran was cited repeatedly, including by the UN Secretary-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and major international human rights NGOs for violating international human rights law. In September last year, UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, released an updated report, Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report outlines eight areas in which the Iranian government is committing serious and systematic violations against the human rights of its own people. These are: instances of torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and corporal punishment; the application of the death penalty, including by public executions; the execution of juvenile offenders; the use of stoning as a method of execution; the abnegation of women's rights; the serious abuse of the rights of minorities; the failure to protect freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedoms of opinion, expression and religion; and the lack of due process rights.
This motion calls upon 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 promote and protect human rights and to seek judicial review of the trials of prisoners of conscience. Before going into detail on some of those matters, I simply wish to note that Iran, with its impressive history as an integral part of the cradle of civilisation which has produced poets like Khayyam, Saadi and Rumi, brought us Persian rugs and gardens, and made an incredible contribution to international cultural heritage, and traditionally honoured teachers with the highest status in society, has much to offer the world if it is able to change course and correct its actions.
I would like to pay tribute to the current generation of courageous Iranians, including Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi and lawyers Abolfattah Soltani and Nasrin Sotoudeh, who have advocated the upholding of fundamental human rights and peaceful democratic change at enormous personal cost. I think it is also important to note that I do not make these criticisms as part of an Iran bashing exercise while ignoring the misdeeds of other countries. I believe I have been even-handed, including with respect to my own country and our allies in pointing out human rights violations where they have occurred.
The UN Secretary-General's 2011 report on Iran found that the application of the death penalty, including on juveniles, has continued and dramatically increased. At the time of Amnesty's 2011 report, at least 600 executions had occurred, reportedly 80 per cent of them for alleged drug offences. Some executions are carried out in public. Iranians authorities claim that public executions are a deterrent to crime. However, international human rights organisations have always maintained that executions in public add to the already cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of the death penalty, and have a dehumanising effect on the victim and a brutalising effect on those who witness the execution.
In January last year, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed grave concerns in a letter to the Iranian government about the death sentences handed down to two young men following their conviction on sodomy offences, allegedly committed when they were minors. It is sobering to note that at a time when this country and this parliament are debating the rights of same-sex couples to marry, which I fully support, gay people in Iran and in a number of other countries are still fighting for the right to life. So, too, women in Iran who speak out for human rights and the right to live without violence, to make their own choices on marriage and employment and to control their own bodies—they continue to face intimidation and harassment. The UN Secretary-General's 2011 report found that there have been persistent arrests of women involved in campaigning for rights, as well as the arrests of journalists and lawyers who speak out on their behalf.
I would now like to turn to the prosecution of religious and ethnic minority groups in Iran. I represented the Australian parliament at an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in late 2010 at which an Iranian parliamentarian extolled the virtue of Iran's freedom of religion as expressed in its 1979 constitution. It is true that Iran's constitution contains a list of recognised religions—those that existed before the time of the Prophet Mohammed. Notwithstanding the apparent tolerance towards those religions in the constitution, Human Rights Watch in its 2012 world report on Iran has documented cases of severe discrimination and persecution of Iran's religious and ethnic minorities, including Sunni Muslims, converts to Christianity and Arabs.
But the Iranian state has perhaps been most savage in its oppression of the Baha'is, who are the largest non-Muslim religious minority in Iran and who are not recognised in the constitution because Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Bah'ai faith, came after the Prophet Mohammed. As I have noted previously in this place, there are many people of the Bah'ai faith living in Australia, including in my electorate of Fremantle and surrounding areas. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Natalie Mobini and other Baha'is in the Speaker's gallery tonight.
Baha'is believe in the unity of religion and humankind, and in harmony between science and religion. They have an elected leadership and promote equality between men and women. In my experience, they are gentle and peace loving people, so it is difficult to understand the degree of hostility by the authorities in Iran towards them. During debate on the previous motion, the member for Blair noted there were at that time 50 Baha'is being held in prisons across Iran due to their faith. That number has doubled over the past year. These prisoners include the seven Baha'i leaders who were arrested in 2008 and have been held in appalling conditions ever since. They have each received sentences of 20 years after brief court sessions, characterised by a lack of due process, as noted by the UN Secretary-General. Several of these prisoners have immediate family members who are Australian citizens—brother, sister, aunts, nephews and nieces, who wonder if they will ever see their loved ones again. Indeed, the oldest of the prisoners, Mr Khanjani, has already suffered the loss of his beloved wife, who has passed away since he was imprisoned.
Among the Baha'i prisoners are a group of educators, referred to in the motion, who have been sentenced to prison terms of four and five years for the purported crime of providing education to young people who are barred from accessing Iran's universities on the basis of their religion. The Baha'i faith highly values education and when it became clear, following the early years of the Islamic revolution, that the regime was determined to prevent Baha'i students from accessing tertiary education, the Baha'i community in Iran took the remarkable and creative step of establishing its own informal mechanism to enable them to study. They used the services of Baha'i lecturers, who had all been sacked from public universities, first providing study programs by correspondence and later through small classes conducted in homes around the country and even through on-line courses.
In May 2011, the Iranian authorities launched a concerted attack against the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education, conducting coordinated raids on 39 homes across the country, confiscating property and arresting 16 individuals. Seven of those people were sentenced in October 2011 for 'membership in the deviant Baha'ist sect, with the goal of taking action against the security of the country'. One of these prisoners has a brother who is an Australian citizen, a longstanding resident of Dubbo, who is desperately worried for him. The member for Parkes spoke about his case in this place in June 2011. These cases represent only a handful of the 100 Baha'is currently held in Iranian prison. The prisoners themselves represent only some of the more than 500 Baha'is arrested since August 2004 and those arrested, in turn, only represent a tiny portion of the many thousands of Baha'is who have been subjected to physical assaults, intimidation and questioning, property searches and confiscation, monitoring of their bank accounts, movement and activities, denial of work and education and even the desecration and destruction of graves and cemeteries.
Last November Canadian senator Romeo Dallaire, the former UN peacekeeping force commander who defied orders to leave Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, told a Canadian Senate inquiry that Iran's current actions against Baha'is reminded him of what he witnessed in Africa:
The similarities with what I saw in Rwanda are absolutely unquestionable, equal … and in fact applied with seemingly the same verve … The alarming increase in incarceration among the Baha'is and, most particularly, among their leadership; the disproportionate sentences and unreasonable bail and the vile propaganda that paints Baha'is as cultish and part of a Zionist conspiracy to undermine the Islamic state of Iran is all … false. It is all an instrument to excuse the deliberate actions by that government to destroy that religion within their boundaries.
He also said:
Make no mistake these are not only indices of past and present persecution; they are warning signs of mass atrocities, of genocide. Let us not witness another one, fully conscious of what the consequences are.
I conclude by simply noting that the abuse of human rights in Iran today is utterly unacceptable and unworthy of a once great nation. I urge Iranian parliamentarians to look to their hearts and consciences to remedy this situation and to support their own people's efforts for change. I thank all members who are making a contribution to this debate tonight.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Saffin: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (21:01): I stand today in support of the motion of the member for Fremantle. I stand together with somebody from the opposite side of the chamber in condemning the abhorrent and repugnant human rights abuses that are currently occurring in the so-called Republic of Iran. There must be no more serious and heinous act in this world than a government turning on its own people and committing violent atrocities on its own citizenry. The very institution that is designed to defend the rights of its people turns persecutor on those that it is expected to protect.
The Arab Spring, at its inception, gave us all hope and anticipation of a positive cultural and political revolution across the Middle East. The optimist in all of us was hoping that democracy would sweep across northern Africa and into the Persian Gulf in a tidal wave of freedom. We did not want Israel to continue to stand as the lone beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Alas, on the ground, the Arab Spring has not matched the anticipation. For all of the hopes that we had, the people of Iran, Syria, Libya and Bahrain have been met with bullets, aggression and brutality. It is the act of the desperate and despicable to unleash the might of its armed forces on its own people, and we have witnessed that. The Arab Spring gave us hope of democracy and the young Iranians on the streets gave us hope for change, but we have seen the acts of a true despot in that of the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
One needs only look at a number of his public statements to discover the depths of this so-called leader's depravity. On the state of Israel he has stated that it 'must be wiped off the map' and that 'with God's grace this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians and other regional nations will be rid of its bad omen'. On the Holocaust he has said:
Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail … we don't accept this claim.
He went on to say that they, being Germans or Europeans:
… have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.
On Zionists—read Jews—he has said:
The Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day.
And he has said:
The world powers established these filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast.
Finally, on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel's independence, he said:
Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken.
Any one of these statements on its own warrants immediate condemnation, yet this despicable vitriol is left unchallenged and has been left unchallenged too often and for too long. It is only now that the world is starting to take more notice of Iran. It is only after the tragic loss of life that the world is paying the attention it should have paid many years before. The words of a tyrant lead to the deeds of a tyrant. It should come as no surprise that the owner of such vile words could be a perpetrator of such vile acts. The only question that remains is: how many people must continue to die before the international community stands against such repression?
In Australia during this time one must ask the questions: Who stands conspicuously quiet? Who stands silent while these human rights are abused? It is not those sitting directly opposite me. It is, in fact, the Greens, those people who suggest that they are the champions of human rights and the keepers of the moral chalice, those professed keepers of all that is right and ethical. Where, I ask you, is Senator Brown condemning these actions? Where is Senator Hanson-Young on her soapbox demanding justice? Where is the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, in this chamber supporting this motion? Where are the Greens protests in the streets? Most importantly, given all that we have learned about the boycott, divestments and sanctions scheme that grew from the Greens local council movement in Marrickville, where are the calls for the boycotts of Iranian companies or even of Syrian ones, to be truly consistent? No, all that is simply reserved for Israel.
Interestingly, the Greens also profess to be strong champions of human rights, particularly for those who are homosexual. Yet it is the country of Israel, the only democracy in the region, that legislates rights for women and homosexuals. In fact, in a recent poll conducted by GayCities.com in conjunction with American Airlines, Tel Aviv was rated the best gay travel destination of 2011. Yet here the Greens condemn Israel and not Iran.
Could you imagine if the Prime Minister of Israel had prayed for the 'annihilation' of the Palestinians? How many motions would the Greens have moved by now? How many press releases, demonstrations and media conferences would they have called? I conducted a search on the Greens website. I typed 'Iran' into their search feature, 23 results were returned and in those results there was not one mention—not one, single, solitary mention—of the atrocities that have taken place, of the abhorrent preachings of the President of Iran or of the blatant human rights abuses posed against ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals. However, if you type in 'Israel' you will find pages and pages and pages—in particular pages as to how you can be involved as well in the BDS movement. This is a truly sad state of affairs and it is of great concern in particular to me that the Greens do not stand with us in this chamber against such violence against human rights workers, women's rights activists, journalists and government opponents.
The Greens seem to quote the UN when it suits them and ignore them when it does not conform to their agenda. And make no mistake: the Greens agenda on Israel is well and truly on show. It is incumbent upon all of us who, at times, take our freedoms for granted to stand up for those who do not share the same freedoms. I call on all members of this parliament, including the Greens—so including Senator Bob Brown—to support this motion and to highlight the atrocities and depravity of the Iranian government and to stand up for the fact that these depravities must come to an end. For too long we have turned a blind eye to the signs that have been staring us in the face, and we must not accept what is unacceptable. I call on the Greens to stand with us in this chamber and support the human rights that are being abused in Iran and to make a very strong and public statement about it.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:11): I commend the member for Fremantle on her motion on human rights abuses in Iran and agree with much of the sentiment expressed by the member for Higgins. Parliamentary colleagues, we all recall the stolen Iranian elections of 2010, a fundamental offence to all democrats around the world. We should have known that day when suddenly, in an abandonment of all precedence, the Iranian ministry of the interior picked up the ballot boxes in Iran and suddenly a government that was so unpopular, by contrast with the candidates who were popular, was the subject of a reversal of all predictions happening particularly in certain regions. We remember the images of young people in green attire, protesting against the corrupted and rigged elections. Since that time the Iranian regime, led by Supreme Leader Khamenei and his grotesque President Ahmadinejad, has perpetrated systematic abuses of human rights against the Iranian people.
The crackdown on dissidents and human rights activists has been so intense that last month alone we saw journalists Saeed Madani, Parastoo Dokouhaki, Marizeh Rassouli, Mohammad Soleymaninia, Sahameddin Bourghani, Fatemeh Kheradmand, Arash Sadeghi, Ehsan Houshmand and Hassan Fathi detained. Seeking to consolidate its power over the Iranian people, the ayatollah regime of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have engaged in what the United Nations has described as:
… practices that amount to torture, cruel, or degrading treatment of detainees, the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of proper judicial safeguards,—
the abuse of—
the status of women, the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, and the erosion of civil and political rights, in particular, the harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and civil society actors.
Late last year I rose in this House to speak about the crackdown on human rights activists in Iran, including the shocking report that an Iranian actress, Marzeih Vafamehr, had been sentenced to jail and 90 lashes for a film that had been in part critical of the regime. It was a film that had an Australian connection, being supported by an Australian film authority. One of the few creative sectors left in that benighted country has been its film industry. I also spoke of the political science student, Payman Aref, who was jailed for a year by the regime and received, shockingly, 74 lashes for criticizing the president. These abuses are characteristic of a regime intent on crushing any opposition to its right to rule. Of course, we have all known over the last years of its terrible abuse of people of the very gentle Baha'i religion. Perhaps the most disturbing human rights violation perpetrated by this regime is that women and under age people, some as young as 16 years of age, are executed despite Iranian laws outlawing this. It is a regime that employs the dreadful Basij—thugs, who are very much like the SA in 1930s Germany—to beat and torture members of the public, to stab the famous young Iranian woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, who bled to death in the square after the 2009 elections.
Charges against victims of Iranian regime include the fact that President Ahmadinejad accused people of warring against God. This is one of the so-called terrible crimes practised by dissidents that have led to executions. We must remember that those in power in Tehran are not representative of the great Persian civilization, of its peoples history and of the current generation. We mourn for them and for the ancient civilisation which is being defamed by this outrageous regime.
Ahmadinejad has also detained opposition leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. Bloggers and journalists are constantly detained, imprisoned and denied proper treatment. The power of the regime is manifest not only at home but also through its use of fanatical stooges in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and in Gaza, Hamas. We have seen the violence over the last few weeks in Syria, Iran's ally. We see precisely the tactics the Iranian regime has used against its own people in Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards have been used as snipers to gun down civilians in the streets of Derra, Homs and Alleppo. It is incumbent upon all of us confronted by this Ba'athist and Iranian butchery to remember the great words of Vaclav Havel:
The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility.
We have a responsibility, as men and women in parliament, to speak out against these injustices and stand up for the voiceless. (Time expired)
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:16): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Iran for the second time in a week. This motion is about human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and I would say that there is very little that constitutes human rights in that nation. Indeed until the establishment of a liberal democracy I cannot see much hope at all.
What we know about Iran is that the current leaders were pretty much the junior officers of the Revolutionary Guard in the period shortly after the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. What we also know is that it is a country of failure—economic failure and failure to even achieve the hopes they had for their own revolution. Perhaps the fact that President Ahmadinejad, being the best known of the leadership group, acknowledges that the nation has been a failure is not that positive a factor. It is certainly my view that, in acknowledging their failures, what they seek is to revive the revolution and get back to its basics. The revival they pursue is firstly through regional leadership and that they seek to achieve through a foreign policy triumph.
It is of course hard to achieve regional leadership when you do not have a model that others could be inspired by. A basket case of an economy is no inspiration. A Shiah Islam dominated nation is again not the leader that the mainly Sunni Middle East will seek to follow, and of course with Iran not being Arab, they are again not easily able to win hegemony in the region. However, all such uninspiring and unsuccessful regimes turn to the usual prescriptions to overcome pathetic failure. In the Middle East that is hatred and threats towards Israel and domestically of course finding local scapegoats for the Iranian government's inability to create a working and effective society that governs in the best interests of the people.
Briefly I would remind the House that in the near future Iran will have developed a nuclear warhead that can be placed on the missiles they already possess. Iran as a nuclear power is not the sort of threat that we want in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world. The time for direct action to alleviate that threat approaches and negotiation and talk is only an Iranian ploy to gain time, in my opinion.
This motion, however, is about human rights in Iran and I will therefore devote the remainder of my contribution towards that. As I said before, it is always a hallmark of failing governments to blame their own failings on a group within society that can be a scapegoat for them. For the last 150 years the Baha'i have been persecuted in Iran and their human rights abused, including in more recent times the arrest and jailing of the leadership in Iran, known as the Baha'i seven. Other notable Baha'i have been arrested in recent months. It of course goes beyond that with ethnic groups also facing restrictions on full participation in Iranian society.
It is my view that so much of what is going on in Iran relates to the maintenance of power in the hands of the ruling elite. They always need someone to blame for their own failings and they always need distractions, and this is what drives so much of what is going on in Iran. Of course the means by which this persecution takes place and is allowed to take place is through sharia law—the system of religious law that is medieval in its positioning and barbaric in its outlook. It is hard to see a purpose for it in the world but it is always there in these nations that do not work on any level. It empowers ruling groups with the means to suppress minority ethnic elements and even women who do not have the same opportunities in education or in any part of mainstream society. Clearly nations that adopt sharia law are the nations that will never advance and in general terms will move backwards despite having wealth through oil, gas and other natural resources.
To be clear on this matter I would like to be specific about how sharia impacts on the rights of women in Iran, thereby demonstrating its retrograde and backward nature. It is surely barbaric when women's rights activists are targeted for suggesting that women should be able to inherit the estate of her husband, that her testimony in court does not equal a man's, or that she should be able to fully seek a divorce and that a mother should be allowed custody of her own children.
Part of this motion has specifically mentioned the United Nations' Report of the Secretary General on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran. While I greatly value the details in that report, I also find irony in the fact that the United Nations' Durban 2 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racial Intolerance was so badly abused by the very subject of this motion being Iran.
This Iranian regime are a failure. They have failed economically. They have failed to govern in the best interests of their people. They persecute their political opponents in order to maintain their position of power. They attack those who hold different religious views. They attack journalists who hold them to any form of account and they do all this because they like power and, as do all such regimes, they govern for themselves and everything is focused on maintaining their positions of privilege and power.
Iran is a nation where the people are held back and their government is guilty of abusing human rights. I condemn them and look forward to when a liberal democracy can be established to properly look after the rights of the people of Iran.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (21:21): I strongly support the motion moved by the member for Fremantle. When I was one of Australia's parliamentary delegates to the United Nations General Assembly late last year, I heard a representative of the Iranian government respond to criticism of its treatment of the Baha'i' by claiming that the Baha'i organisation in Iran was political rather than religious in character, that it was illegal, and that its organisation had been 'closed'.
This quite blood-curdling response clearly displays a contempt for the basic concepts of freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of religious expression. In countries such as Australia religious minorities enjoy a very high degree of freedom of religious expression and observance. As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely unacceptable for members of those religions to deny the same freedoms to religious minorities in other countries, including Iran. Religious minorities who enjoy freedom of religious expression in Australia, the US, the UK, Japan, Europe et cetera should provide the same freedom of religious expression in countries in which they are not a minority.
In light of the upcoming Iranian presidential elections, scheduled for 12 March, Iranian bloggers and media workers are once again the target of crackdowns and arrests by Iranian authorities. This may mean we will see a repeat of the unrest during the aftermath of the previous fraudulent presidential elections. According to Amnesty International:
… Iranian authorities are once again choosing to restrict freedom of expression and association in an apparent attempt to disrupt public discourse and potential criticism of the authorities’ record in various spheres including human rights and economic performance in advance of the start of the election campaign.
Amnesty's report, titled Iran: Wave of arrests in run up to parliamentary elections, lists the names of individuals who have been incarcerated for convictions such as 'acting against national security', 'spreading propaganda against the system' and criticising the Iranian regime.
Such arrests are by no means without precedent. Students, women and political activists are regularly the target of arrests and are subject to gang rape and both physical and psychological torture during their imprisonment. According to Ahmed Shaheed, the new UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, Iranian authorities have secretly executed hundreds of prisoners. According to Amnesty International, Iran has the world's highest per capita execution rate. In the year 2011, the Iranian regime executed 488 people for drug related offences compared to 2009 and 2010 where 172 and 166 executions were recorded respectively.
Social freedoms are restricted. According to Iran's Islamic laws, men and women are not permitted to interact unless they are related. If a man and a woman are walking in public and are approached by the morality police, they must justify their relationship to the authorities, who may or may not be satisfied with their response. Seventy per cent of Iran's 70 million population is under the age of 35. It is commonplace for the morality police to interrogate the youth on their choice of hairstyle and clothing as well as their choice in music.
I believe we should be more supportive of the Iranian opposition. I am mystified as to why we continue to list Iranian opposition groups the PMOI and the MEK as terrorist groups. It is a free gift from us to the Iranian regime. Do we get anything back from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in return? No. He is as outrageous as ever.
While I am on this topic, it is important that the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is able to resettle the residents of Camp Ashraf in democratic countries rather than them being left to the tender mercies of either the Iraqi or Iranian governments. Neither of those governments is trustworthy in relation to this matter and the UN and the nations of the world have an obligation to ensure there is no more violence here.
Finally, let me praise and salute the courage of the Iranian people who resist their violent leaders. I marvel at the courage, the gutsiness, of those Iranian people who refuse to submit and who constantly find ways to defy the regime, despite the threats to their personal safety.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:26): I seek leave to speak on this matter again.
Leave granted.
Mr SIMPKINS: I welcome the opportunity to again echo the remarks of the member for Fremantle with regard to the situation in Iran and the terrible state of human rights in that country. I recently, in the last couple of weeks, had the opportunity to visit Israel. As part of that visit, not far from Haifa, I visited the headquarters of the Baha'i faith. One of the things that happens when Iran seeks to persecute the Baha'i is they constantly refer to the link between the Baha'i and Israel, as if there is some sort of conspiracy. As we know the headquarters of the Baha'i is within the land of Israel but they are not associated with the Israeli government. They are a faith that have sought to further their own interests. Most of them are located within Iran, there is no doubt about that, but the scapegoating that I referred to in my last contribution is clearly about the maintenance of the current regime in Iran.
It is a regime which, as I said before, fails comprehensively in every sense of the word. When you have the resources that Iran has, there is no reason why they should not succeed. And, yet, the reality is that since 1979, since the Islamic revolution, the country has continued to fail. They cannot run an economy. That is one thing but the way they seek to legitimise their position and the governing of the country comes down to scapegoating. It comes down to finding reasons why they have failed, and it is always about blame and, at the heart of it, it then becomes about asking, 'How do we maintain our regime?' Again, it is focused internally on who they can persecute, who they can hold responsible for their own failings—and the Baha'i are right up there on that list, as are a number of other minority groups that exist and which have been referred to by previous speakers. Externally they seek to demonise Israel; they seek to unite the remainder of the Islamic world in their persecution and their pursuit of Israel.
In the end, all the Iranian regime has really got is base power. They are looking for nuclear weapon opportunities, and they will seek to lead the Islamic world through that means. They do not have a legitimate claim over that part of the world, and whilst they might have great ambition they do not have any real claim for the hegemony that I spoke about before.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:30): Order! It being 9:30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Iraq
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (21:30): Today I wanted to participate in a debate in another chamber on a motion moved by the member for Fowler on the Sabian Mandaeans but, because of a diplomatic visitor, I was unable to be present in the chamber to participate in the debate. I wanted to note my support for his raising this issue. It is not the first time that he has done so. In fact, I spoke on a motion in very similar terms on 30 May last year.
At that time I noted that I had had a long association with the Sabian Mandaeans, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans and other Aramaic speakers generally. They were not necessarily constituents of mine but I was particularly interested in the plight of many of the original Christians and also the followers of John the Baptist—the Sabian Mandaeans. Having played such a significant role in those countries in the Middle East, it was tremendously disappointing to see them under pressure at particular points in time and suffering as a result of persecution. I noted in my previous speech that I had had meetings with the Middle East Council of Churches, particularly in Jordan. I had been told, in a very concerned way, that they were very worried about what was happening to Christians in many Middle Eastern countries. It would be a disaster if we came to a point where Christians, where all that early history and engagement occurred, were no longer able to reside in those parts of the world.
So it was with a deal of pleasure that I noticed again that the member for Fowler recognised the historic connections and contributions of the Mandaeans and others in that region, their ongoing plight and the systemic loss of culture, heritage and language. He condemned the acts of violence and persecution and encouraged the preservation and continued prosperity of the heritage and culture of the Sabian Mandaeans and other indigenous people of Iraq.
Some 50 per cent of Mandaeans have either died or left Iraq since 2003. Mandaeans have repeatedly called for the evacuation of their entire people. The community now numbers about 3,500 people, down from 60,000 people in 2003. Religion and ethnicity go hand in hand in Iraq. Unfortunately, that is also reflected in the constitution. It is a situation where only minorities like the Mandaeans, included in the subgroup of Christians and other groups, lack certain privileges that one might expect. There is nothing in the way of representation. We have seen situations in which there are recorded killings, including of women and children. There have been 46 kidnappings and 10 reported threats—21 between January 2007 and January 2008. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, as reported in 2010, eight members of the community have been killed or injured due to politically or ethnically motivated attacks.
Some 6,000 Sabian Mandaeans now live in Sydney. I guess that is one of the reasons that this matter has been raised by some of my colleagues. Let me make one point which I disagreed with on the last occasion, which was the linking of Australia's part in the coalition of the willing with prompting us to be involved in this matter. The member, in his motion, states:
… Australia … has a moral responsibility to compassionately support and protect the indigenous minorities …
When I was Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, I was able to provide within the refugee program many places to settle Sabian Mandaeans in Australia. I think they have been wonderful settlers. I notice that the honourable member has been raising with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship matters relating to the Sabian Mandaeans. I hope that, in response to his representations, this government will be able to be as generous as the former government was in assisting the Sabian Mandaeans, who need further assistance. (Time expired)
Page Electorate: Pelicans on Posties
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (21:35): I speak tonight to bring the attention of the House to a wonderful local initiative that aims to raise funds for a local Ballina based school, Biala Special School, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. We all know and love the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and if honourable members knew the Biala Special School in the way that I do they would love it in the same way that I do. In fact, a family had moved from another state just so that their child could attend this school. The blessing was that it was in Ballina, because they would have moved anywhere in Australia to have their child in the school, but they got the double prize—also being able to live in Ballina.
I attended the launch of Pelicans on Posties on Friday at Biala Special School in Ballina. It was the first time that I had been on an Australia Post postie's bike, which was made especially by Honda. I did not ride it, because I have not got a licence; I just sat on it. Honda is a sponsor—there are a lot of local sponsors and I am sorry that I do not have all their names here tonight—and Honda were there on the day along with some other sponsors. Who are Pelicans on Posties and what are they doing? In their words:
A group of 20 blokes (affectionately called Pelicans) from the Northern Rivers Area of New South Wales are riding original postie bikes from Ballina NSW to Darwin NT to raise funds to support children with special needs along with supporting medical services to the outback.
How did this come about? Again, in their words:
The idea began the same way most great Australian ideas do, over a few beers at the pub. Most years a few friends will get together and go out West for some occasion be it the Birdsville Races, a charity event like the Endeavour Rally or the Variety Bash, ideas were being exhausted.
This year they decided to go one better, they were sick of cars and so opted for postie bikes. Darwin is far enough away to be an adventure and a half and they chose their own worthy causes to fundraise for. It's a crazy idea and it's going to be big! It's so crazy that many people said we'll never do it, crazy enough that it just might work.
I am sure it will work, and I am backing it. I have the route here. They are starting in Ballina. I will not name everywhere, but they are going to Roma, Tambo, Longreach, Camooweal, Barkly Homestead, Renner Springs, Katherine and Adelaide River, ending up in Darwin in July. I said to the 20 blokes—the Pelicans on Posties—that I will raise the awareness of it with my colleagues here whose seats they are riding through and also with the local mayors. Because it is not happening until July I have time to do that, so hopefully they will be welcomed. It is raising money for Biala Special School, which is in my seat of Page, and also for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which covers a wide area over the seats of various members and is also something that we all throw our support behind.
One of the Pelicans on Posties is Bill McInerney, who is leading the team and who is someone I have known for a long time, one of the good locals. The other Pelicans are Gavin Speers, Dick McInerney, Lee Fitzgerald, Bernie Heckel, John Linton, Brett Cramp, Troy Cramp, Heini Geisel, Mick Koellner, Peter Livingston, Scott Gollan, Monk, Mark Vado, Brendan Byrne, Brendan Bourke, and Pelicans 17, 18, 19 and 20 whose images will be listed soon on the website. The website is www.pelicansonposties.com.au.
We are helping by buying raffle tickets, so we might be able to win one of those bikes made especially for Australia Post—they are not easy to acquire. (Time expired)
Pelicans on Posties
Herbert Electorate: 3RAR
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (21:40): To the member for Page: if those guys are going out there on postie bikes, the one thing they will not be looking for on the way home is a seat. They were looking for an acronym for the drive along the Flinders Highway, and one wag from Richmond came up with the acronym, MAMBA country. They asked him what it stood for and he said, 'Miles and Miles of Bugger All'. They will see plenty of that. Just be very careful—the only thing you see on the side of the road at night that does not look like a cow is a cow.
Last week on Friday I had the great honour of standing at the side of the road of our fabulous Strand to watch the welcome for the 3RAR. The 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment has moved from the seat of Cook into paradise in the seat of Herbert. They marched along, and it was a casual 34 or 35 degrees with 87 or 88 per cent humidity, but the guys just loved it. They had to form up in Strand Park near the Cenotaph there, which, Mr Speaker, you will know very well, and stand at attention for about 15 minutes before the speeches started. They watched all sorts of speeches. They had a welcome to country by Gracelyn Smallwood and Uncle Arthur Johnson from Magnetic Island. We only lost two, who collapsed in the heat, but we were very lucky to be able to walk around the crowd afterwards and welcome the boys.
As true Townsvillians we turned up—there were about 1,500 people there at 10 o'clock in the morning on a school day to welcome them. The 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment is the final hand in glove for the ready-deployable forces in Australia. It has truly come home. The member for Cook has often been told that the shire is where it happens, that the shire is the greatest place on earth, but he is so wrong. The guys have been fantastically welcomed into Townsville. It is not just the guys who are there; it is what they bring with them. With Lavarack Barracks, the RAAF base at Garbutt and Ross Island Barracks at South Townsville we now have over 7,000 defence people in Townsville, and with those 7,000 defence people we also have their families who live with us.
The effort that the ADF and the Townsville City Council in particular have made in integrating the defence personnel into our community has made Townsville the No. 1 spot that people want to be transferred to when they are in the Defence Force. We are singularly the best spot for defence forces in Australia. Our football clubs of all codes will be welcoming young, strong, fit men. These men are paratroopers; they proudly wear the parachute on the right shoulder. They are ready-deployable, trained, professional soldiers, but it is not only them but their wives who will fill our playgroups, our coffee lounges and our jobs that we need them to do. Their children will come into our schools and our university and our trade centres. Their friends will come and visit them. Townsville is a wonderful place and it is a great place to be.
We were lucky enough to have a defence families expo on the Friday afternoon and the Saturday, where we saw over 1,200 families come through to find out about everything from the Burdekin, out to Charters Towers, up to the Great Green Way and towards Tully, Innisfail and Ingham. It was a wonderful place for everyone to come through, and the Murray Stadium that the Townsville City Council erected with federal funding was a welcome place for it.
I was lucky enough to attend the Royal Australian Regiment dinner on Saturday night where the numbers were swelled by the officers and gentlemen from the 3rd Battalion. We were lucky enough to receive an address from Brigadier Bruce Scott, who has just returned from Afghanistan. The things that he was able to tell us about what is going on over there and the esteem with which Australian soldiers and Defence personnel are held was truly remarkable. It goes without saying, we have a wonderful place here that we are able to maintain these sorts of relationships without our Defence Force.
We have 7,000 Defence personnel. All these people are coming in and our places are all open. Come to Townsville; it is a great place to be if you want 3 RAR. Thank you very much. Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: As I assume that Brigadier Bruce Scott is not the honourable member for Maranoa, I will allow the member for Herbert to refer to him in such terms.
Banking
Ms BURKE (Chisholm—Deputy Speaker) (21:45): I rise to speak on the worrying trend of job cuts in the banking industry as reflected by the recent decision of Westpac to axe 560 jobs and the ANZ announcement today of 1,000 jobs to be lost. Employees in the banking industry and jobs within the finance area have always been a particular passion of mine as I had worked in the Finance Sector Union as an industrial officer before entering this place. Indeed, I am reminded of the words I said in my maiden speech in this place some 14 years ago when I lamented the job cuts that ANZ were going through at that time and the sadness that I had experienced of having to let people know that their jobs were no longer there. I particularly remember one senior manager who said to me: 'Anna, you know if they had given me six more months I would have gotten the gold watch. Do you reckon you can get me the gold watch?' Well I got him his gold watch, but it was not the issue of the gold watch—it was his loyalty to an organisation who had seen him in his prime and had just axed him from his job.
There were many peaks and troughs working in the Finance Sector Union, and the announcement by Westpac today reminds me of the bad times when we were told of large job losses that were driven by boardroom decisions and nothing more. It is the ever present cost-income driver. How profitable does a bank in this country need to be? These job losses were not lost because of declining conditions in the banking industry. They were lost because of a heartless calculation of cost and income, where cost was calculated in terms of human capital and personal pain. Then, as now, the major players in the banking industry were recording billion-dollar profits.
I saw thousands of staff being made redundant from the ANZ group—the group I was looking after at the time. These job losses represented not only retrenched men and women but also a huge loss of opportunity for future school leavers, graduates and many mums returning to the workforce. Then, like now, job losses meant that many with decades of experience in the finance sector were suddenly stranded without any realistic prospect of future work. Where do these workers now go? Then, like now, we were dealing with the question of how banks would deliver services. Often the job losses I was dealing with back then were about bank closures. The bizarre thing is, at that time they then reopened all the bank branches because they realised customers actually like to talk to a human being, and the Bendigo Bank was capturing the market. So we will go through this cycle again—but why? Why do we have to cause this human misery?
Now we are dealing with the phenomenon of jobs being sent offshore; this is not new. How banks can do this in a period of record billion-dollar profits just beggars belief. The big four banks in Australia alone made $24 billion in profits last year. I do not have a problem with banks making a profit. Indeed, I am proud that they are making such profits in this country. Profitable banks that bring a return to their shareholders are a vital element for a strong and prosperous country; it is vital for every shareholder in this nation. But it does not seem right or fair that Westpac on the one hand is making $6 billion in record profits in one year and paying their CEO nearly $10 million and, on the other hand, axing hundreds of jobs. Today, ANZ has announced that about 1,000 jobs are likely to be axed. Their share price on that announcement rose to 25c in early trading. That is it: a thousand families face job losses and they are worth 25c in share value.
I really question the sense of offshoring. Offshoring not only means that Australian jobs are foregone with the massive consequence in human terms, which I referred to, but seems a completely short-term response to long-term issues in the finance sector. I moved a private member's bill in this place in 2007 speaking about this very issue. We just go round and round in circles. The global financial crisis has created a different environment for Australian banks. The sovereign debt crisis in Europe has created a large degree of economic volatility. Banks increasingly need to find long-term solutions to deliver short-term returns and to support individuals in business and, indeed, the national economy. Many of the jobs banks may need in the coming years do not exist now. It makes sense to create a specially trained and flexible workforce for the days when these banks will need these jobs—not a short-sighted, cost-cutting exercise.
In addition, customer focus in this sector is more important than ever. Banks are taking a big risk in cutting staff in an increasingly competitive environment. Experienced and skilled staff are essential in banking if they are to survive the environment where customers are becoming more sophisticated. Banks also need to be mindful of their brand. Their customers are walking away because they are trashing their brand. With the issue of offshoring, do you know where your information sleeps tonight? Do you know if your bank has offshored all the private information you provided when you took a loan? No, you do not. It could already be housed in India where their privacy laws are nowhere near as stringent as ours. Consumers should be properly informed when they take out these products. I call upon Westpac, ANZ and the other banks to reverse these short-sighted decisions. (Time expired)
Private Health Insurance
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (21:51): I rise to express my concern and outrage at the detrimental effects of federal and state Labor policies on the cost of living for constituents in my electorate. The people of Brisbane deserve better than the incompetence and mismanagement of the Gillard and Bligh Labor governments. The latest attack by Labor on the cost of living of constituents in my electorate is the private health insurance rebate changes that are currently before the parliament. The changes propose the slashing of the private health rebate and increasing the Medicare levy surcharge for certain categories of taxpayers. This is effectively a tax hike for the relevant taxpayers in the categories that are prescribed, but the impact does not stop there. Independent analysis has predicted the flow-on and indirect effects of the changes will be very, very significant. These changes will force people to drop their private health cover or choose cheaper cover with more procedures excluded, thus creating upward pressure on premiums for everyone, including low- and middle-income earners, and forcing more people into overcrowded, overstretched public health services.
We see evidence of this every day at the Royal Brisbane Hospital in Herston. The AMA public hospital record card 2011 also revealed that 220,000 Queensland patients were kept 'off the books' for elective surgery; ambulances queue for hours outside emergency departments just to get their patients through the door and into a bed. These changes are especially significant for my electorate, because 89,920 people in Brisbane have private health insurance and 66,676 of these people are voters, which equates to 72 per cent of the voting public. This is 20 per cent above the national average.
The real life impact of these changes is expressed very well in an email I received from a constituent of mine in Grange. He writes:
I just read an article regarding debate about the medicare levy and means testing the rebate. I'm 31 and got private health insurance just in time. what a waste that was.
I earn just over $80,000 and my girlfriend who i've bought a house with is a teacher. I went to uni and have a hecs debt but because of my earnings I'm paying it off. would like to pay it in bulk but they've dropped the discount so the $$$ better in my pocket for longer.
Why is it that everything is means tested? We are currently just over the limit, meaning that we are getting slugged with the flood levy, soon to be carbon tax and if they change the Medicare levy or increase it, we will be dudded on that as well. Tell me why Australians should try to succeed. There is no point. I'm now working harder for free. The more i earn the quicker i pay my hecs, the more i pay for others. I'm on the borderline. I should go get a job earning $75,000 and I'd be better off. No levy's,no means testing.
Please do something. This country is going down the drain!
These are the forgotten Australians that Labor is ignoring. As this constituent says, the changes come on top of the flood levy and the carbon tax. This is an ordinary, hardworking Australian who aspires to be successful.
Increasing the cost of living for working Australians is not a trait that is unique to federal Labor governments, because the Bligh government has an equally appalling record in this regard. Massive increases in electricity, water, stamp duty and car registration have been the hallmark of the Bligh government and its predecessor the Beattie government. That is why there is a very important choice for Queenslanders to make on 24 March. My electorate will be a key battleground in this fight. The LNP led by Campbell Newman has a plan to lower the cost of living by freezing car registration, repealing the waste tax, reinstating the principal place of residence concessional rate for stamp duty, cutting government waste and many other measures.
I look forward to working with Campbell in Ashgrove; Saxon Rice, up against one of Australia's worst Treasurers, Andrew Fraser in Mt Coo-tha; Dr Chris Davis in Stafford; Robert Cavallucci in Brisbane Central; and Tim Nicholls in Clayfield to ensure that we have a government that is committed to lowering the cost of living for Queenslanders. The people of Brisbane will have their chance to send both federal and state Labor a message on 24 March, and I urge them to do so by consigning the Bligh government to the scrapheap of Australian political history—exactly where it belongs.
Bass Electorate: 'Hooked on Books'
Mr LYONS (Bass) (21:56): I rise in the House this evening to speak on the opening of Hooked on Books, an exhibition visiting the Launceston Queen Victoria Museum and Gallery at Inveresk, and to thank Mr Richard Mulvaney, Director of QVMAG, for his words at the opening, which I quote from tonight.
Peter Gouldthorpe, artist and illustrator, opened the exhibition on Friday night. The exhibition showcases Albert Ullin's collection of children's picture book illustrations from 1974 to 2009. Albert Ullin is a former president of the Children's Book Council of Australia. He is a recipient of the Dromkeen Medal for services to children's literature and he received the Medal of the Order of Australia in 1997.
It is my understanding that Mr Ullin began acquiring the works in the late 1970s, when he became aware that young illustrators of picture books were struggling to make a living. The Hooked on Books exhibition is presented, curated and managed by OzLink Entertainment and is certainly worth a visit for families.
This exhibition is particularly important as 2012 is the National Year of Reading. The National Year of Reading promotes the idea of children learning to read and provides sources of inspiration for those who are already keen readers.
According to the 2006 adult literacy and life skills survey, nearly half of all Australians—46 per cent—do not have the literacy skills they need to cope with the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge based economy. This could range from the basic demands of everyday life, such as reading a street sign or recipe, to understanding instructions on a medicine bottle, reading a text book at school or reading safety instructions at work.
Australian libraries and library associations were behind the campaign to turn 2012 into the National Year of Reading, linking together a range of inspirational programs and events. Libraries will be partnering with government, the media, writers, schools, publishers, booksellers, employers, childcare providers, health professionals and a whole host of other organisations that share a passion for reading.
The Launceston City Council in my electorate of Bass is participating in the National Year of Reading by distributing book vouchers to children participating in citizenship ceremonies throughout 2012, and providing information about the initiative at community events such as Children's Week activities.
The council is also working with the Launceston Library to support their National Year of Reading program of activities, and is liaising with Cityprom to coordinate an event in the city that will promote the joy of reading.
I hope that all parents read to their children and that children who have eye problems are able to get them rectified if possible as early as possible so that the potential for learning is available to them.
It is my hope that every child in Launceston can visit this exhibition. I thank Richard Mulvaney and curator Jacqueline Taylor OAM for their efforts. I also wish to note that there are some great ambassadors for the National Year of Reading, including my good friend and colleague Dick Adams, the member for Lyons; Bryce Courtenay AM; and Anh Do, among many others.
The Australian government is committed to delivering the highest quality education for all Australian students and has engaged states and territories in a challenging reform agenda for literacy and numeracy. This new approach to improving outcomes is based on greater collaboration around what works. Getting the basics right at school is critical in building an education system that pursues excellence and equity for every student. The Gillard Labor government believes that every child in every school has the right to a great education. We have invested $65 billion in schools over four years—almost double the coalition's investment in their last term.
The UK's National Year of Reading in 2008 was successful in starting to shift attitudes to and behaviours around reading with specific target audiences. It resulted in 6,000 National Year of Reading events registered on the website and 2.3 million new public library members. This was a fantastic achievement and one that I hope can be repeated here in Australia. I ask that every member of the community visit the Hooked on Books exhibition at the QVMAG in Launceston.
Gillard Government
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (22:01): A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister summoned her caucus to gather around with some butcher's paper, pencils at the ready, to develop policy for our nation's future. One can only wonder at the thoughts that must have been passing through the minds of her enthused backbenchers. The party that 'lost its way' has built on the 'year of decision and delivery' and now has the butcher's paper that will lead it through 2012 and beyond.
To keep some perspective, let us take a moment to contrast how others go about the business of strategic planning. In the corporate world the development of investment strategies is partnered with intensive due diligence, as expert decision makers analyse the direction in which the company is going to travel. At the centre are fiscal prudence and responsibility to shareholders, checked by an assortment of banks and accountants who independently scrutinise every last dollar. Smaller companies take risks; big businesses are more conservative, more responsible and more accountable, using their vast resources to perpetuate their success.
It seems the biggest business of all, the one that runs our country and answers to over 22 million shareholders, operates a little bit differently. This group with the butcher's paper has a record of investment which includes flammable pink batts, unwanted school halls and $900 gifts to dead people—and the NBN, such a brilliant idea that it was created on the back of a beer coaster at 30,000 feet! The riches gained and grown over 12 years of good government have all washed away within just a few years of 'hard Labor'.
In contrast, on the other side of the aisle, Tony Abbott and Andrew Robb preside over an all-inclusive structure—
The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will refer to members by their electorates or by their positions, not by their names.
Mr ALEXANDER: Excuse me. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for finance preside over an all-inclusive structure of policy development units. This group is delegated the responsibility to privately address the challenges that we now face and to divine the best path for our nation's future, overseen by shadow ministers who direct, scrutinise, encourage and, at times, redirect. If certain ideas gain support, more guidance and assistance is freely given. The Leader of the Opposition is kept apprised. He is the final check. You had better have your homework done by the time your baby arrives for baptism.
As a first-term backbencher, I find one of the most gratifying aspects of involvement in this process is the seriousness with which policy development is treated. In my maiden speech to parliament, I spoke of the need to master-plan our nation's long-term growth. Subsequently I was assigned to chair a sustainable cities policy task force in collaboration with my parliamentary colleague the member for Ryan.
Most Australians were astounded recently to learn that Sydney's real estate prices are second only to those of Hong Kong, whose high costs are understandable: lots of people and not much land. We have boundless plains and a small population. Land is our single biggest asset. This confounding scenario has developed without intervention. In the absence of any national plan of development the symptoms of serious illness are appearing.
There are few things more regrettable than opportunities missed and potential unrealised. This is reminiscent of the biblical story of the master who entrusted money to his servants, of free will. One buried the money and did nothing with it and gave it back to the master on return in full. The other set about industriously using the money, did good work, and increased the master's fortune. The first was chastised for being lazy and doing nothing. The other was praised and rewarded. Apparently there was a third servant, but the text has been lost. He is said to have wasted the money on harebrained ideas and was then knifed by his sister, who did even more wasteful and wicked things whilst all the time lying about her deeds.
Genuine policy development should arise from due diligence, serious analysis involving academic and industry experts and based on the need for long-term planning and financial responsibility. We are entrusted to govern not just for the current electoral cycle but with a view towards 2020, 2050 and 2100. When it comes time for the next periodic judgment, our team will be ready, having without fanfare sought to expand our vision—scrutinised, examined and tested—to find the track to achieve our full potential for this generation and future generations.
As the glow of camera flashes subsides from the Prime Minister's butcher-paper event, the coalition have returned to parliament determined to realise our opportunity and prosecute the case for a stronger future for our nation. We stand proudly together on this side of politics, a team united by a common purpose. (Time expired)
Makin Electorate: Mawson Lakes
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (22:06): Following a review of electoral boundaries in South Australia, the suburb of Mawson Lakes is now within the electorate of Makin and I have the privilege of representing the Mawson Lakes community in federal parliament. Prior to the review Mawson Lakes was very well represented by my friend and colleague the member for Port Adelaide. As Mayor of the City of Salisbury during the planning and development of Mawson Lakes, I had a very long personal interest in and close association with the Mawson Lakes community. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity to now represent the Mawson Lakes people in this place.
Mawson Lakes is a unique, relatively self-contained community built on a theme of quality living, learning, working and recreation. It was a joint venture project between the South Australian government and Delfin Lend Lease, with the City of Salisbury and the University of South Australia becoming key partners in the development. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it was a fully pre-planned community built on vacant stock land adjacent to a university campus and to Technology Park, a high-tech industry precinct. Strategically located in close proximity to other key destinations in Adelaide, it has good arterial road access and a direct rail link to the Adelaide CBD that takes less than 15 minutes.
Today, Mawson Lakes has a residential population of around 10,000, a student population in the order of 7,500 and a working population of about 5,000, all well supported by a range of retail, business, education and recreational facilities. The expanded and still growing University of South Australia is complemented by Mawson Lakes primary school and Endeavour Lutheran secondary college, providing an integrated and seamless learning pathway within the community.
Community engagement has been a major strength of the Mawson Lakes development. From the outset, active consultation with the local community has driven much of the decision making. A residents association was quickly established once the first residents had moved in. Community events have become a regular feature of the Mawson Lakes community, with both the Mawson Centre and Mobara Park acting as focal points for most events. The Mawson Centre is a modern multipurpose community building which includes, amongst other facilities, a public library and a theatrette. Mobara Park, located in the heart of Mawson Lakes, is named in recognition of the City of Salisbury's Japanese sister city.
Mawson Lakes is a very diverse community, with people of all ages, nationalities and occupations now living there. An important aspect of Mawson Lakes is the number of man-made lakes and public open-space areas, including a continuous linear park along Dry Creek, which runs through the suburb. A special feature of Mawson Lakes is the dual water system throughout the development. Each property is connected and plumbed with both mains water and recycled water.
In July last year I joined the member for Port Adelaide in the official opening of the Mawson Lakes primary school's new indoor sports stadium, aptly named the Dennison Centre. It is a fantastic addition to the school and, not surprisingly, was very well received and much appreciated by the local community. Equally notable was that the official opening was a whole-of-community event, with broad representation from across the local community further highlighting local community collaboration and community spirit.
I take this opportunity to especially acknowledge the first residents of Mawson Lakes, the pioneers who moved in during the early years when few services were available. They placed their faith in the developers. At the time, they understandably may have questioned the wisdom of locating their new home there or whether the new suburb would live up to their expectations. I believe that it has. What began just over a decade ago as a relatively isolated university campus surrounded by stock paddocks and a handful of high-tech industries has been transformed into a vibrant, modern community that has become a model development and a sought-after residential and business destination.
I am acutely aware of the importance of the defence sector and in particular the DSTO, the Edinburgh defence base, the many defence related industries in Mawson Lakes and the Techport hub at Osborne to the livelihood of many Mawson Lakes residents. For that reason, I recently met with the Minister for Defence Materiel to discuss the importance of federal government contracts to South Australia's defence sector and to South Australia's future.
I also know that a considerable number of Mawson Lakes residents are small business operators. As a former small business operator, I well understand the demands and pressures on all business and the importance of ensuring that our economy remains strong. I look forward to representing the Mawson Lakes people in federal parliament, working with them and taking up on their behalf the issues that matter to them.
Wind Power
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (22:11): There are increasing concerns around Australia, and particularly in my home state of South Australia, about the rapid expansion of wind farms and the associated health risks and long-term threats to agriculture. Last year, I raised in this place the issue of the stability of the electricity grid in South Australia. Those points still remain. To reiterate, South Australia is home to 51 per cent of the nation's installed wind capacity—that is, around 1,050 megawatts—which represents 35 per cent of South Australia's total installed generating capacity, including the baseload generators of coal and gas. To flesh this out further, currently there is 792 megawatts of installed capacity in the electorate of Grey alone, making it the undisputed wind capital of Australia. There are considerable spin-offs for local employment opportunities, and I am pleased with the investment.
But this question needs to be asked: how far can we go? Already there is between 2,145 and 2,609 megawatts of further wind power generation officially under development in the state; although, as I have raised before, because of the inherent destabilization of the grid it remains to be seen whether they will ever be completed. In fact, if all the wind farms under development were to be completed they would encompass 63 per cent of South Australia's installed generation capacity. This is clearly ridiculous and totally unachievable. The grid would collapse well before then. Best advice around the world recommends that unreliable sources not exceed 20 per cent of capacity. In fact, the leading lights in wind generation around the world—Denmark, Portugal and Spain—are presently generating 19 per cent, 18 per cent and 16 per cent of their total electricity from wind.
In August last year, Suzlon Energy announced their intention to build one of the biggest wind farms in the world on Yorke Peninsula: 600 megawatts, with an undersea high-voltage DC line connecting the peninsula to Adelaide. That is a very good announcement, even though there are considerable local concerns about the environmental impact, the health impact and the implications for agriculture, particularly aerial spraying. However, if this project were completed, installed wind energy capacity would represent 65 per cent of the total grid capacity, and even this is an underestimate because by then the coal fired power stations at Port Augusta and probably much of the capacity of the gas generation at Torrens Island would be closed.
This is unsustainable and cannot happen. Already the grid is experiencing difficulties. At times during the last year, Alinta Energy at Port Augusta has been forced to dump power. Simply, coal power stations and even the gas units at Torrens Island—combined gas cycle generators—are not designed to chase power spikes. They are baseload generators. When the wind blows strongly there is a surplus of electricity on the market and the price crashes below zero. As retailers, who are compelled to buy 20 per cent renewable, will always buy renewable first, while it is cheap, this leaves the baseload generators with no choice but to dump electricity which is already generated. Obviously, too many days when the generators operate at a loss threaten their long-term viability.
At this stage any increase in wind energy will erode the viability of the only baseload generators we have, and that will be a crisis for the state. As an example of just how close we are skating to the wire already, on 31 January last year, a high-demand day, the unreliability of wind was demonstrated when the state was becalmed and the wind produced just 60 megawatts from an installed capacity of 1,018. Should the most optimistic of the wind energy predictions come true and all of the proposed schemes come on line, a similar day would produce a situation where the grid would be reduced to 50 per cent of its capacity, and this would most likely be on one of the highest demand days in the year because that is when we are becalmed, in the middle of summer. Of course, that would be a disaster and cannot be allowed to happen.
Wind energy can continue to expand, but it urgently needs either another major interconnector to the eastern states or a technology capable of storing large amounts of electricity. In the short term, I think both of these outcomes are unlikely.
I raise the issue because I believe much local anxiety is being caused by projects that will not and indeed cannot get off the ground at the moment. I urge the South Australian government and the promoters of these wind farms to be honest with the electorate.
Australian Service Personnel of Chinese Heritage War Memorial
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (22:16): Last Saturday night, I was proud to attend a dinner with Brisbane's southside Chinese community to celebrate the completion of the Chinese-Australian war memorial and bursary program. I have the flyer here. The memorial stands proudly in the Garden of Remembrance at the home of the Sunnybank RSL in Gager Street. It is a fitting tribute to our Australian soldiers, sailors and air men and women of Chinese descent. The memorial honours the service and sacrifice of Australian-Chinese service personnel.
When the Prime Minister inspected the memorial last year, she described Griffith University architecture student Sarah Batchelor's design as 'simple beauty'. As Prime Minister Gillard said, it will prompt reflection and gratitude. It recognises diggers like Billy Sing and Caleb Shang, who fought in the First World War, and Jack Wong Sue, who served Australia in World War II—to mention but a few of thousands who served.
I have told the House before about the courage of Private Billy Sing, who attested to the old Chinese proverb 'kill one man, terrorise a thousand'. He was a roo shooter from Proserpine who became a sniper with the Australian 5th Light Horse Regiment and is conservatively credited with more than 150 enemy soldiers killed in Gallipoli. It is easy to see why he was known to his fellow soldiers as 'the Assassin'. Private Sing was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for 'conspicuous gallantry as a sniper at Anzac'.
This memorial and the continuing bursaries honour all those of Chinese heritage who have served their country in times of peace and in war and those who continue to do so now. The RSL and Chinese community established a bursary program to help educate local southside students about the Australian-Chinese service personnel in our armed services. For years to come, they will help tell the stories of our veterans to a new generation.
The memorial has been a labour of love and sacrifice for my Chinese community and has helped build stronger links between the local RSL and the broader community. Chinese community leaders like Lewis Lee, Ralph Seeto, Jesse Chee, Douglas Ng, Adam Lo, Peter Low and many others have given much time and energy to bring this about, as have Sunnybank RSL representatives Robert Lippiatt and Reg Walls and the current president, Brian Ryan, who was formerly of the RAAF. These volunteers have shown what can be achieved when communities focus on what we have in common rather than what divides us.
When I first proposed this idea in my first speech to parliament back on Wednesday, 20 February 2008, I never imagined what could be achieved. It is more than just erecting a stainless steel memorial; it is also about helping to heal and help a community. To see the RSL and the Chinese community standing side by side to open a war memorial which honours the service of Chinese Australians, many of whom were not actually citizens or allowed to be citizens at the time, shows how far we have come since the 'Night of Broken Glass' which rocked Brisbane back in 1888. That night was born out of fear and mistrust in a different time, and thankfully we live in a different Australia today. This Chinese war memorial is a mark of the diversity, cooperation, understanding and friendship that is alive and well on Brisbane's south side. That is why next week I will meet with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Helen Szoke; Chinese community representatives; and the RSL. We will reflect on what has been achieved in establishing this memorial. I am very much looking forward to showing the commissioner some of the tastes and sights of my electorate, which has the best restaurants in Australia and is Queensland's real Chinatown.
Now that the memorial and the project have been signed off and celebrated, I now look forward to working with the south-side community, particularly the Chinese and Taiwanese communities, and local and state governments to help construct an iconic landmark over Mains Road in my electorate, not far from my electorate office. In this particular lunar year I can think of nothing more appropriate than a big, red dragon.
Velo-Cardio-Facial Syndrome
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (22:20): I would like to draw to the attention of the House a very important matter that was brought to my attention by a resident of Boothby, Mr Raymond Tanner. Mr Tanner asked that I bring the issue of velo-cardio-facial syndrome to the attention of the parliament. I do so because I suspect that most people in this House would be unaware of this syndrome.
Velo-cardio-facial syndrome is the second most common genetic disorder after Down Syndrome, and affects one in every 2,000 people. The name velo-cardio-facial syndrome comes from the Latin words velum, meaning palate; cardio, meaning heart; and facies, having to do with the face. Velo-cardio-facial syndrome is a genetic disorder with varying conditions present in each individual with the syndrome. It was first identified by Robert Shprintzen in 1978.
Because the syndrome has only been recently identified, in relative terms, many adults may not even realise that they could have VCFS. The syndrome is caused by the deletion of a small segment of their chromosome 22 at the q11 region. The cause of this deletion is not known. More distressingly, a person diagnosed with VCFS has a 50 per cent chance of passing the syndrome on to their children. Those affected may have one or all of more than 180 unique anomalies, including palatal abnormalities, in 69 per cent; heart defects, in 74 per cent; absent or malformed kidneys; learning difficulties; intellectual disability; hearing loss; adult psychiatric disorders; and dysfunctional immune systems. These anomalies can cover nearly every organ system in the body with broad-reaching effects on development and behaviour, including on speech, language, personality, mood, learning, attention, and temperament. Those diagnosed with VCFS may also suffer facial abnormalities.
The lack of knowledge of VCFS is frustrating for those suffering from it and for the parents of diagnosed children. Quite often, these people feel that they know more about the issue than the doctors that they see. As I mentioned earlier, this is still a relatively unknown condition and many doctors are still unaware of it. As it is the second-most common syndrome we need to ensure that doctors are better informed of this issue. I would like to thank Mr Tanner for contacting me, and raising his concerns with me. I would also urge the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing, who is sitting at the table, and other members of this House to take an interest in velo-cardio-facial syndrome.
People can get more information on VCFS at the VCFS Educational Foundation web site at www.vcfsef.org or at the VCFS 22q11 Foundation web site at www.vcfsfa.org.au. Both organisations provide help, support and information for individuals, or families who may be suffering from or supporting a family member with VCFS. I encourage anyone interested to contact them for more information.
Ageing
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (22:24): I take the opportunity this evening to report to the House an important event that occurred in my electorate in January. The member for Throsby and I co-hosted a conversation on ageing at which we were pleased to have the Minister for Health and Ageing present to talk with over 200 local people. They came along to talk about the program that the federal government is looking to follow after the publication of the Productivity Commission report on managing ageing, Caring for Older Australians. This is about making sure that our older people, our older citizens, not only have quality of life but, as the minister said, are able to participate in and contribute in an ongoing way to their communities, and working out how we can best achieve this at a time when, as we all know from the originally commissioned reports of Treasurer Costello in the former Howard government, we face challenges as the demographics of our communities change so that there are more people over the age of 65 relying on fewer workers of a younger age.
It was really encouraging and I think the minister's message was well received by those who were present. He particularly did not want to frame this conversation as a problem. He does not want to see ageing presented as a negative in our society but he felt we could find a far more productive way of working our way through this by seeing it as an opportunity and by working with older people in our country in order to find ways in which they see themselves participating more fully over the longer term.
It was a really good forum. We worked through the overarching principles that the minister had outlined as arising from the commission's recommendations. Briefly for the House's information, they are, firstly, that every older Australian deserves the right to be able to access quality care and support that is appropriate to their needs, and when they need it. The second is that older Australians deserve greater choice of and control over their care arrangements than the current system provides. The third is that funding arrangements for aged care need to be sustainable and fair both for older Australians and for the broader community. The final one is that older Australians deserve to receive quality care from an appropriately skilled workforce.
There were a lot of contributions from local people ranging across their direct experiences and their hopes and ambitions not only for themselves but for generations that will follow them—an aspect of our current older generation that is familiar to us all is their commitment to making sure that they achieve things not only for themselves but for their children and their grandchildren. We had a lot of that presented at the forum.
I want to finish up by referring in particular to a follow-up email I received. One of the groups at the forum was the Dementia Support Network from our local area. The member for Throsby and I had met them when they came to Canberra at the end of last year for a larger forum and lobbying on dementia support event. I followed up on 13 December and met locally with the local support network, organised by Val Fel and Dianne Zisis. I had a really moving meeting with them. There was one lady there—I will not name her—whose husband has dementia as young onset dementia, and it was particularly brave of her to talk about the situation that their family found themselves in and the pain and difficulty they had gone through. Her husband was there with her. I really appreciate that.
Val particularly wanted me to follow up after the forum. She had really appreciated the opportunity to talk to the minister on these issues and she wanted to encourage all members of the House and the Senate to think about how they would feel if they suddenly found a loved one no longer knew who they were. If we could answer that, she feels, we would go some way to understanding the challenges that they deal with and to develop strategies for what she calls AREA—awareness, research, education and access—to support and help not only people with dementia but those who support them and love them in their families. I was really pleased they had found that a useful process and I commend them for their ongoing work on developing new local strategies, including working with the University of Wollongong through a community seminar on dementia and to ensure the community is advised of the issues. (Time expired)
Ballarat Electorate: Australian Prisoner of War Memorial
Baird, Mr David, IM
Ms KING (Ballarat—Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport and Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) (22:29): Last Sunday I had the honour of attending the anniversary of the commemoration of the Australian Prisoner of War Memorial in my electorate. I want to put on the record just how appreciative I am of the hundreds of people who turn out each year supporting POWs and their family members to commemorate that memorial. It was a very solemn occasion because it was the first time we did not have David Baird, IM present, David having passed away fairly recently in his 90s. I again want to put on the record what an extraordinary person he was and what an incredible gift he has given to both our community and to the POW community in commemorating these some 35,000 Australian prisoners—a very fitting memorial and a fitting tribute to David.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 22:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Dr Leigh: to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the important role played by the Australian Public Service in upholding and promoting our democracy and its key role in ensuring stable government;
(2) commends the Australian Public Service on continuing to be one of the most efficient and effective public services in the world; and
(3) condemns plans by the Opposition to make 12,000 public servants redundant.
Mr Ripoll: to move:
That this House notes that:
(1) Australia's economy is strong, resilient and outperforming any comparable nation, as such:
(a) Australia's unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent is historically low when compared to Europe and the United States;
(b) the IMF ranks Australia's 2011 per capita GDP as sixth ahead of 176 other nations; and
(c) Australia's Government net debt as a percentage of GDP that peaked at 8.9 per cent is extremely low when compared to nations such as Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France;
(2) living conditions for Australians are the best in the world, and that Australia was ranked:
(a) second in the 2011 United Nations Human Development Index; and
(b) first in the 2011 OECD Better Life Index; and
(3) the Australian economy is becoming a knowledge economy with the finance sector accounting for more of the total economy than mining or manufacturing.
Mr Crook: to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the role played by Albany in the ANZAC story, as the gathering place of the ANZAC First Fleet and the final departure point for many Australian and New Zealand soldiers leaving Australia in November and December 1914;
(2) acknowledges the work undertaken by the Albany Centenary ANZAC Alliance in promoting Albany's rich ANZAC heritage;
(3) notes the recommendations from the National Commission on the Commemoration of the ANZAC Centenary calling for Albany to play a focal role in the 2014 ANZAC Centenary, including the recommendation:
(a) for a re-enactment of the convoy of vessels to gather in King George Sound; and
(b) to establish an ANZAC Interpretive Centre on the contours of Mount Adelaide; and
(4) calls on the Government to commit support and funding to ensure that Albany is able to deliver a nationally significant event in commemoration of the ANZAC Centenary in 2014.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Leigh) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Higgins Electorate: Railway Crossings
Infrastructure
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:30): Congratulations on your appointment, Deputy Speaker Leigh. Last week, it was two years since I delivered my maiden speech in the parliament. I committed then as I commit again now to represent the concerns, both big and small, of the people of Higgins. After conducting 11 community forums, countless mobile office meetings and an electorate-wide survey, it has become abundantly clear to me that there is a very specific issue that resonates deeply with the people of Higgins. This issue will only worsen over time as our population grows and our community becomes more densely populated. It is an issue that requires urgent action. I am referring to the ever-increasing traffic congestion in the inner Melbourne region and in particular at the bottlenecks where road and rail connect. There is little doubt that traffic congestion caused by level crossings is a major source of frustration for many of my constituents, with some even phoning my office while they are sitting in their car, which they are often forced to do for anywhere between 15 and 40 minutes.
While it is always dangerous to single out the worst, there can be little doubt that the crossings that connect with the Dandenong rail line are some of the worst in the state. I have written to the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to draw his attention to the Victorian government's recent submission to Infrastructure Australia requesting funds to commence grade separation along this line. The submission highlights the fact that the Dandenong rail line is a critical infrastructure arterial, delivering $92 billion to the Victorian economy, which represents about half of the state's GDP and nine per cent of national GDP.
In addition to this, the Dandenong rail line can move 12,500 passengers in a single peak-hour period on a combination of 15 metro trains and two V/Line trains. The Dandenong line services some of Melbourne's largest growth corridors in Pakenham and Cranbourne and is a key component of the Victorian public transport system. The railway line is already at or above full capacity, resulting in the constant closure of level crossings. Within my electorate of Higgins there are three crossings in close proximity to each other, Koornang Road, Carnegie; Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena; and Poath Road, Murrumbeena. The impact of their frequent and lengthy closures is severely impacting upon pedestrian and car traffic and road freight, with negative consequences for local businesses, schools, shops and community life.
At one of my mobile office meetings, one mother told me that she will not be taking her child to her choice of childcare facility because it is over the railway line and this simple journey would take her more than 40 minutes in traffic, rendering it completely impractical. She told me that as a result she will not be returning to work in the near future. And there are countless other stories just like this.
But these are not the only infrastructure problems in my electorate. There are other desperately needed grade separations required at Toorak Road and Glenferrie Road. This is something that I will continue to campaign for, as these major intersections should be of high priority. We need to have a functional rail and road system. Fixing these infrastructure problems is critical to increasing our nation's productivity.
On 16 November, I sat down with the state Minister for Transport and Roads, Terry Mulder, with a map of Higgins to tell him where investment was required. It is now up to the federal minister for infrastructure to heed the call. I call upon the federal government to support the Victorian government's submission and work in a bipartisan way on this critical infrastructure.
Blair Electorate: Somerset Civic Centre
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:33): I wish today to speak about the Somerset Civic Centre in Esk. This new centre will fill the void caused by the fire which burnt down the 101-year-old Lyceum Hall in May 2010. The Esk community was severely affected by the fire and also by the floods in early 2011. People across the whole region of Somerset showed great resilience. The Lyceum was home to many of the region's community groups, such as fitness and dance classes, the Esk Community Choir and the organisers of the Esk show. It held generations of memories as well as props, costumes and music. Its demise was a great loss to the whole Somerset region.
But out of the devastation came opportunity. With a growth rate of 4.5 per cent, the Somerset region is the fastest growing region in South-East Queensland. The Somerset Civic Centre will see new investment, new jobs, more employment opportunities, big events and conferences and attract more visitors. We do not want to see any more disasters in Esk. The people of Esk have suffered enough. I want to congratulate the Somerset Regional Council for listening to the local community and facilitating this community driven project.
The architects have worked to incorporate community feedback into the final plan for the building. It is estimated that 5,000 people—such as local artists and business groups—will use the venue each year for functions, dances and awards nights. The facility has been made possible by round 1 of the Australian government Regional Development Australia Fund grants. For round 1, the federal Labor government provided $150 million for 35 shovel ready projects worth about $480 million. Tragically, those opposite opposed every last dollar. The Regional Development Australia Fund is worth about $1 billion and my electorate will benefit massively from an injection of $2 million. The Somerset Civic Centre is a great example of a local government identifying a community need and shows how local people can offer local solutions and have them implemented through federal government funds.
The Gillard Labor government is proud to invest $2 million through the Regional Development Australia Fund into the Somerset region for the Somerset Civic Centre. The Esk skate park, the Ferndale indoor sports centre and the BER projects are all testimony to this federal Labor government's commitment to the people of Somerset. I am told that six jobs will be created during the construction. I was there at the sod-turning with the mayor of the Somerset region, Graeme Lehmann, who thanked the federal Labor government for the investment and said that the project would not have been possible without that injection of money. We will listen to local communities and act decisively to make sure that the people of Somerset and other communities around the country receive the funding that they deserve. Those opposite oppose this. I congratulate everyone involved in the project. I am looking forward to the fantastic facilities providing for the community for years to come.
Swan Electorate: Curtin University
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:36): I rise to speak on the proposal for a medical school of Curtin University to be established in my electorate of Swan. Ensuring adequate health care is provided to my community is something that I see as not only very important but imperative. Supporting our universities to grow and improve their services also provides huge benefits to our community. Curtin University has submitted a proposal to the federal government that will see a number of benefits to my electorate and to our health system. I stand to support this proposal. Curtin University has a long and proud history of providing high-quality health education. The university already educates more health professionals than any other Western Australian tertiary institution. Expanding Curtin's health education facilities will add to what is already a professional and well-regarded institution.
The proposal for a new medical school is particularly important given the growing evidence of a shortage of doctors in Australia. I note that shortages have been a significant problem for some time in my home state of Western Australia, especially in rural WA, where more than half of all doctors are overseas trained. It is clear that we need to grow the number of new doctors to keep up with the growing demands of our health system. A 2009 report in the Medical Journal of Australia showed that by 2025 Australia will need to import 25 per cent of its medical workforce if the current level of medical student placements is maintained. The National Health Workforce Taskforce has predicted that an additional 356 medical student placements would be needed from 2010. I note that Western Australia, being Australia's fastest growing state, will be in particular need of new doctors.
Curtin is proposing a five-year direct entry undergraduate bachelor of medicine and a bachelor of surgery, commencing in 2014. This new school will ensure a much needed increase in the number of new doctors entering the WA system. The new undergraduate degree will produce graduates for areas of particular need. As Curtin's vice-chancellor, Jeanette Hacket, has said, this issue is not just about numbers but about ensuring that we have the right skills in the right places. A recent inquiry report by the health department and Rural Health West highlighted that WA is facing a shortfall of up to 100 rural doctors. I also note comments made by the president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia that Australia was becoming too dependent on foreign doctors and that instead we should invest more in training domestic medical students.
Establishing clinical schools in priority rural locations and focusing on securing placements in regional and remote area hospitals are key parts of this proposal. This should aid the bid by the WA Department of Health to attract more medical graduates to these under-resourced areas. This new facility will help meet the growing demand for health professionals and will provide lasting benefits to my electorate and the people of Western Australia. I urge the federal government to support the proposal for the Curtin University medical school.
Richmond Electorate: Byron Regional Sport and Cultural Complex
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (10:39): I rise today to talk about a fantastic event in my electorate last Friday, the opening of the Byron Regional Sport and Cultural Complex. The opening of this more than $16 million complex was an outstanding event. It is project that many people in that community have worked hard on for a very long time, so it was great to be there. What is particularly important is that the federal Labor government delivered $9.5 million for this project. First of all, we committed $1.5 million through the Better Regions Program prior to the 2007 election, which we delivered on; also, the Byron Shire Council were successful in receiving $8 million under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. So that is $9.5 million towards this great project and shows that the federal Labor government understands how important it is to invest in regional infrastructure like this. What is so important about this project is that we have a massive sports centre, with 10 outdoor playing fields. The scale and size of it are just outstanding. Inside is an indoor stadium with multiuse indoor courts. In addition to sport, this wonderful facility can be used for massive conferences or cultural centres. This is something that the Byron Bay region did not have before, so it is an outstanding project for our region and adds to the economic benefit of Byron Bay and to tourism. A number of jobs were created whilst the project was being built and there are many permanent jobs now, so it is an outstanding addition to that area.
There are a number of people I would particularly like to thank who were very much involved with this project. First of all, is the mayor, Councillor Jan Barham, who has followed this project since day one and has worked very hard towards it. Then there is Paul Irwin, President of the Byron Bay Community Sports Association and also this year's Citizen of the Year in Byron Bay Council's Australia Day awards, who has been absolutely dedicated to this project from day one. Then there is Herb Elliott, the fantastic champion Olympian, who has been involved from day one as well and who has been outstanding. Also, there are John and Delvene Cornell, Byron Bay residents who have had a strong commitment to supporting local community sporting grants. In fact, a sports field has been named in honour of Herb Elliott and another in honour of the Cornell family, recognising their contribution to the local region.
This is an absolutely huge community victory. Everyone in the Byron region was committed to getting this built, and I was very proud as the local member to be able to deliver more than $9.5 million to see this opened and to see the difference it will make to locals. They need to have international standard sporting fields, and it is great for the local community and for international visitors. It is fantastic for what is already the international icon that is Byron Bay now to have a conference centre that will attract people to the region.
Grainco
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:42): Last week in this place the member for Oxley abused the rights of privilege offered in this House to launch an attack not only on Campbell Newman but, in the process, on the company Campbell Newman previously worked for: Grainco. Needless to say, senior management and board members were less than impressed with this grubby attack on those who do not have the same opportunity as the member for Oxley to respond to those assertions.
At a function in Brisbane last Friday, Mr David Crombie, a former deputy chairman of Grainco, took the opportunity to refute the claims of the member for Oxley, and I now place his statement on record. It says:
Over the past few weeks I have been aware of comments about Mr Campbell Newman's involvement with Grainco. Mr Ripoll's comments—as recorded in Hansard—are neither accurate nor are they a true representation of Mr Newman's roles and responsibilities while at Grainco.
I served as an independent Director and Deputy Chairman of Grainco from 1995 to 2003. Grainco's shareholding was predominantly Queensland grain farmers.
A major challenge for Grainco was the seasonal nature of supply out of Queensland and the unreliable supply of grain due to rainfall variability.
If Grainco was to survive in competition with the major southern and east coast grain accumulators the Company needed to become more efficient in handling grain and it needed to expand its reach beyond Queensland. To deliver a new business model Grainco needed to recruit the appropriate new skills.
Mr Newman was initially employed by Grainco as a Project Manager. His initial responsibilities at Grainco were in logistics as part of a team reorganising grain supply and upgrading central depots. He handled his tasks effectively delivering more efficient chains that improved the operations of the Company and also delivered efficiencies for the grains industry in Queensland.
Mr Newman was General Manager Business Development when Grainco expanded into Victoria. In this role he was part of the team responsible for the design and construction of a new grain handling and ship loading facility within Melbourne Port. This facility was the first new loading facility to be constructed in Australia for decades and it incorporated the latest technologies and logistics and grain handling including up country linkages into Victoria and Southern New South Wales Grain growing regions.
The Terminal in Melbourne was built on time and within budget. This was no small feat given the busy and complex site adjacent to the Docklands Precinct and that construction cost blow-outs were not unusual at this time.
In his final year with Grainco Mr Newman was appointed General Manager Operations with responsibility for the management of the grain handling system for the company.
Mr Newman left Grainco in 2001 of his own free will. Throughout his time at Grainco Mr Newman was a hard worker, he was enthusiastic, he delivered outcomes and he had the support of his co-workers and of the Board.
That is exactly why Campbell Newman will be a great Premier of Queensland.
Victorian and National Country Music Awards
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (10:45): Over the weekend I had the pleasure of attending and presenting some awards at the Victorian and National Country Music Awards night. The Victorian and National Country Music Awards is a great success, with a range of wonderful local Australian artists performing and receiving awards during the night, and a good time was had by all the 150-odd people who were there in attendance.
The national country music awards and the Victorian country music awards are a chance to get up close and personal with Australia's finest country music talent. The awards are part of Victoria's premier country music event, the Whittlesea Country Music Festival. It showcases an extensive and premier range of Australian country music artists in the township of Whittlesea, which makes for an idyllic rural setting for this event.
The annual community celebration—which has been going strong for 13 years and which showcases high-profile Australian country music entertainment, including local icons like Carter and Carter—is held in the Whittlesea township, as I said. The highlights of the weekend included a gala evening of the music awards at the Plenty Ranges Arts and Convention Centre in South Morang and a free street party in the Whittlesea township, and on Friday and Saturday nights there were gigs at different locations around the township. On Saturday the township of Whittlesea closes down but the shops were open. All the street vendors were there, along with many up-and-coming talents who busked in the streets and sold their CDs. There was the Sunday round-up and, of course, the truck and ute show. They always go hand in hand at the different events.
I would like to congratulate the major winners on the night. Adam Toms was male vocalist of the year for Fighting For. Female vocalist of the year was Rose Carleo for That Season Again. Group of the year was Jetty Road, who took home six awards for I'm a Dreamer. Duet of the year, which was one of the awards I presented, went to locals Carter and Carter for their song Keeps Getting Better.
These events do not happen easily. In fact, a lot of time, effort and energy goes into them via a range of volunteers led by Tony and Sue Holding, Rebecca Buchanan, Sally Tregea, Dave Watson, Peter Twot, Ingrid Breann, Julie Sulivan, Graeme Hunter, Leanne Murnane, Kim Mamarn, Cliff Scott, Des Hall, Lynn Cockrell, Steve Beiancon, a girl named Sunshine Cross, Julie McBride, Marney Keally and Jake Holding. These people donate many nights and many hours of heartache and headache to organise this fantastic event, which showcases not only country music in Victoria but also our region—and that is the important thing.
The show had to be cancelled three years ago due to the Black Saturday fires, but since then the volunteers have been working extremely hard to get it back up and running again. The event was absolutely fantastic on the weekend. The numbers were down a little bit due to the weather but spirits were very high. The range of talent there was first-class. Congratulations to everyone who was involved in this event and let us see it go for at least another 13 years.
Live Animal Exports
Ms LEY (Farrer) (10:48): I rise to acknowledge the hard work and belief of a constituent of mine from the city of Albury. During the height of last year's disastrous live cattle export ban by the Gillard government, Eddie Lombaert took to the streets with fellow believers collecting signed support to end the export of live animals for slaughter. I do not agree with Eddie's point of view. I do not agree with it at all, but I am here today to acknowledge that he has a right to make that view known and he has a right for his voice to be heard on the floor of this House. That was certainly missing in this place last year. When Labor blundered in and cancelled 100 per cent of the trade in June, it overlooked the fact that up to 45 per cent of cattle were already going to abattoirs that met the same stringent standards that we demand here in Australia.
As we saw last week there are isolated examples where these standards are broken, but that does not mean there is widespread crisis taking place. In everyday life there can be breaches of acceptable standards that can be calmly extinguished with negotiation, understanding and good skills. The issue of taking animals to slaughter certainly did not need the impotent stamp of this Labor government to protect itself against its dominant bedfellow, the Greens.
Unlike the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry last year, my constituent Eddie Lombaert did not charge in to correct things by using a sledgehammer. Unlike the corporate arm of the RSPCA, which took that moment for an opportunistic, ill-informed and incorrect swipe at me and others, implying that anyone who opposed the live ban must therefore, in turn, support animal cruelty, Eddie Lombaert saw the Four Corners report and thought, as most of us did, that there must be a better way. So he actively and diligently sought support for his views. And I respect him for doing that. I too believe that Australian must always pursue the cause of animal welfare both at our market abattoirs and those of the countries we continue to export to. I thank Eddie for arguing his case to me. I recognise that, for him personally, it was not an easy task, but it was one he completely dedicated himself to, tramping the streets door to door, shop to shop. I wish Eddie all the very best and I thank the House for allowing me to table the results of his campaign, the 2,866 signatures of constituents who have petitioned me on this important matter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): The document will be forwarded to the petitions committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with standing orders.
National Broadband Network
Ms KING (Ballarat—Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport and Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) (10:51): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations for being in the chair. I represent an electorate where the rollout of the NBN is quickly gaining momentum. The foundations of Australia's telecommunications network were laid over 100 years ago. While they may have served us well then, if we do not modernise our ICT infrastructure we are at risk of strangling our economy. That is why I am very pleased that my community has been given a head start. At the eastern end of my electorate, in Bacchus Marsh, work on delivering high-speed broadband began last November. Just as that work was beginning I was also able to announce that Ballarat Central was among the latest new sites in Victoria where work on providing high-speed broadband would begin in the next two months.
In addition to these initiatives benefiting Bacchus Marsh and Ballarat Central, work to deliver fixed wireless broadband in areas around Ballarat was confirmed and planning is well underway. Just last week, the Prime Minister and the minister for broadband announced a $620 million investment by the government in the construction of two new broadband satellites to ensure the three per cent of Australians who live in remote Australia are not left behind in terms of this new technology.
The NBN is about building a stronger economy. It is about driving productivity and ensuring that the nation is equipped with the infrastructure we need to grow and prosper well into the 21st century. We are committed to seeing that the entire nation is equipped with the broadband infrastructure we need for the long-term future of our economy, and only one party is guaranteeing equivalent levels of service for broadband in regional, rural and remote areas.
Lack of access to high-speed broadband is one of the issues that is constantly raised with me wherever I go in my electorate. During visits to schools in my electorate I hear how the high-speed broadband delivered by the NBN will change the way students access information and schools communicate with each other. Our universities know how the NBN will provide opportunities for collaborative learning approaches between institutions both within the region and the nation with their counterparts internationally. The already excellent health care facilities in Ballarat will be enhanced even further with the NBN, enabling video consultations, remote and real-time diagnosis of tests and scans and the high-speed secure transfer of medical imaging and patient records. There are significant business opportunities as well, as the NBN will open up Ballarat businesses to international markets.
I do not want my region left behind when it comes to the delivery of the fastest and most efficient communications that we can have. There will be challenges in our community as this rollout occurs—I acknowledge and understand that—particularly with the fixed wireless network. It is very important that NBN Co. gets community consultations right and operates with the highest level of transparency whether it is the proponent of local planning applications or one of the potential and users. As a community we should expect nothing less. The NBN is a vital piece of infrastructure for our community and having the NBN in place before other regions offers us a significant competitive advantage. It is certainly an advantage that we welcome in Ballarat.
National Servicemen's Day
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:54): It was an honour and a privilege yesterday to lay a wreath and say some words at a National Servicemen's Day service in my electorate. Australia owes a debt of gratitude to our Nashos. It is fitting that this commemoration was held beside the National Servicemen's Memorial in the Victory Memorial Gardens in the tri-service city of Wagga Wagga. No other regional city in Australia has a military heritage that comes even close to that of Wagga Wagga. It is the home of the soldier, with Blamey Barracks at Kapooka. It has wonderful Air Force and Navy bases at Forest Hill. Wagga Wagga is also home to many, many Nashos—proud servicemen who answered their country's call, did their duty and played their part. Between 1952 and 1972, a total of 287,000 young Australian men were called up in two separate schemes for compulsory training in the Air Force, Army and Navy. National service was a vital part of Australia's defence preparedness for three decades. Sadly, 187 Nashos paid the ultimate price for their service and 1,479 of them were wounded on active duty in Vietnam, Malaya and Borneo. Nashos killed in action gave their tomorrows for our todays. The price of peace is a heavy debt for our country to pay and many Australians, including many Nashos, have laid down their lives so that we can now enjoy the freedoms we have.
The pursuit of peace is, however, an ongoing struggle and I need not remind anyone just how deadly and difficult today's military deployments are for our brave serving men and women. Australia has lost 32 of its best, bravest and brightest in Afghanistan, 28 of them falling last year.
In my address yesterday, I acknowledged the presence of the hierarchy of the three local bases and, on behalf of those present, I thanked them and the hardworking and diligent service men and women they command. Our military personnel do us proud each and every day. As we reflect on the fact that the price of peace is eternal vigilance, we recall just what a difference Nashos made. We should pay tribute to Nashos, as we do. It is not hard to see why they are so proud to say that they were a Nasho, why they are so proud to march on Anzac Day and why they are so proud of our flag.
How anyone, particularly young people, can desecrate our national symbol is beyond belief. More time in the classroom needs to be devoted to educating children about the enormous sacrifices made by our military, including Nashos, who have given today's kids the hard-won opportunity to be freely able to do pretty much what they want when they want. But for the courage and pluck of yesteryear's armed forces, including Nashos, a different language would surely be spoken in this great country of ours today. We should never forget that. Let us also not forget that Nasho family members were rightly concerned for their sons and brothers during their time of national service. 14 February marks the day the last Nasho marched out of camp, a significant occasion ending a significant chapter of Australian military history.
Canberra Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:57): Mr Deputy Speaker Leigh, congratulations on your appointment. It is with great pride that I rise to offer my congratulations to this year's Australia Day honours recipients and, in particular, to those in the Canberra community. There are many outstanding Canberrans who have received awards and I would like to take this opportunity to mention just a few. First, I make special mention of the late Dr John Buckingham. Dr Buckingham was posthumously recognised for his outstanding service to medicine, particularly the care of women undergoing treatment for breast cancer here in Canberra. He is sorely missed and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Sue.
I also congratulate David Parker, who was recognised for his service to public administration and to Kidney Health Australia and people with kidney disease. I was on the board of Gift of Life with David. He is a kidney recipient and he is an outstanding public servant and outstanding community member. Prue Power was recognised for advocacy for community health and nursing. Carol Woodrow was recognised for her service to the performing arts, youth theatre and the development of Australian women playwrights. Ross Barrett was recognised for his contribution to the building and construction industry. He was recently acknowledged by the Canberra Business Council for his great work in the community. Congratulations to Louise Blue, who was recognised for her service to children and young people with disability. Brian Cook was awarded for his service to conservation and the environment. Michael Edwards was recognised for his service to the protective security industry through training programs. Stanislaw Kowalski was recognised for his service to the community through organisations supporting multiculturalism and the Lone Fathers Association.
Ursula MacDermott was yet another worthy recipient for her service to the community through the ACT Neighbourhood Watch Association. Dennis Page was honoured for his contribution to our community and for his service to business and the people of the ACT. Noel Tarbotton was also recognised for his huge contribution to our community and young people through Scouts Australia. Julie Tongs, who is well known around Canberra for her tireless campaigning for the rights of Indigenous Australians, was awarded for her work as the CEO of Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service in my electorate. It is a great service for the Indigenous community in Canberra and around the region. I recognise Sheila Thompson for her outstanding contribution to our community as a chief church organist and musical director. There are also those who have been honoured for their service to our armed forces, and I congratulate them as well, particularly Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm McGregor, who is a friend of mine and was recognised for his service to the Australian Army as Director of the Land Warfare Studies Centre.
As you can see from this shortlist, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many Australians and many Canberrans out there who are doing exceptional work across a broad range of services and industries. Congratulations to all the recipients of this year's Australia Day honours, particularly those Canberrans, and I encourage members to promote these awards particularly among their multicultural and Indigenous communities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Local Government
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Oakeshott:
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.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (11:00): I rise to speak to this motion on local government. There are some parts of the motion of the member for Lyne for which I have full sympathy. I spoke of the need for recognition of local government and the need for a regular funding stream to local government in my maiden speech in this place in February 2008. Local government has been meeting to discuss constitutional recognition and a conference relating to that was held in Melbourne last year. My concern is for regional local government—local government in rural areas. If we look at a funding stream and just bundle all of local government in together, I believe that regional local government will still be the poor cousins. What has happened over many years is cost shifting down to local government so that local government in rural and regional areas are responsible for many things that large metropolitan local councils are not.
I was the Mayor of Gwydir Shire Council before I came to this place, and not only were we responsible for the basics of local government—the three Rs: the roads, rates and rubbish—but also we were responsible for aged care and child care, we owned two medical centres, we employed an early family intervention worker, we were the RTA agency and we were the Centrelink agency. That is a whole range of responsibilities that, in larger areas, local government would not have to deal with. We were even involved in landcare type issues. We also had responsibility for a large network of very poor quality roads servicing highly productive areas.
While I agree that we need a regular funding stream, I think that we need to look at this not as a flat rate. If we receive this funding as a percentage of GST or if it is allocated on a per capita basis, once again the City of Sydney Council, Brisbane City Council, Hornsby Shire Council, Blacktown City Council and so on will be flush with cash. They have large rating bases and many people stacked up several storeys high but have nowhere near the responsibility of regional councils. I believe that we have got a way to go with this, but what I have been saying to the councils in my area is not to rush into something that is once again going to leave regional local government the poor cousin. Indeed, Gwydir Shire Council and Moree Plains Shire Council have formed the Australian Rural Roads Group to lobby on behalf of high-production agricultural councils and to speak of the benefit of local roads. Everything that we purchase on the supermarket shelf starts its life on a local road. Indeed, the economic capacity of this country is being impacted because these rural businesses—many of them are multimillion dollar businesses—cannot meet contractual agreements because of the poor state of the roads. We have seen a focus on metropolitan areas and the large arterial roads, and they are important, but the local roads are equally important. When assessing a government's commitment to country roads, a fund for the Pacific Highway really should not be taken into account. It plays a different role compared to the local roads. While I agree with the sentiment of the member for Lyne, I cannot agree to the detail or the intent of this motion. I will continue to lobby in support of a decent go for funding and recognition of local government in Australia.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:05): I thank the chamber and the previous speaker for rolling on. There is another function on nearby, the fourth anniversary of the apology, and it is a very important day. The point of this motion is very much to recognise some of the points picked up by the previous speaker regarding the local road network in Australia. It is failing. In frank terms, it is buggered. It does need a completely new funding model to address some of the realities faced by local councils right throughout Australia, particularly for the growing burden of a failing road network.
For one council in my region the figures are compelling. They have a road backlog of over $250 million. Based on current Australian design standards, building a kilometre of local road costs about $1 million. To not go backwards any further they have to somehow put in $27 million a year—that is to remain with a backlog of $250 million. They have a rate base of around $10 million to $15 million. The maths simply does not add up. In New South Wales these are rate pegged councils and their capacity to do it themselves simply does not exist. We are beyond the point of simply blaming dodgy councils or dodgy councillors. We are beyond the point where we can continue to accept the argument that it is our money because of states' rights. In my view the money raised through taxes and rates at all levels of government is the people's money and we are not doing our job and not fulfilling our obligations if people are paying rates and taxes and not getting a return in quality services, such as local roads.
I would agree with another point the previous speaker made. The separation of highways—for example, the Pacific Highway was mentioned—is an important separation that needs to be made. I would also agree, taking it to the next step, that regional roads need to be separated. Both the highway network and the regional road network can receive an awful lot of money through Commonwealth and state revenues. It is that next tier down, the local road network, that has failed. I am not just using that as scare language. I think the various engineers associations that work with the road networks have been making that call for many years now. In a region such as mine, not only has the funding model led to failure of the local road network but we have once again over the last month just been through another flood, which increases the speed of the damage. That is on the back of a flood last year and natural disaster relief funding for those roads has yet to come through. So it is a flood upon a flood, damage upon damage and a bill upon a bill in circumstances where there is already an enormous backlog and a failed funding model.
The GST review is on. John Brumby and Nick Greiner are good men and I would hope they are not just going to serve up a no-change model. I think there is an opportunity over the next couple of months to really consider all options in light of the circumstances that Australia faces. This motion is trying to get the local road network on the agenda, if not via direct funding to local councils then by somehow changing the funding model so that we can start to address what is a failed network. I urge the Treasurer, the GST review committee and government members to put in some thought and reflection on that and not allow this GST review to just say that horizontal fiscal equalisation is the way to go, that there should be no change because of the current parliament and away we go.
There is an urgent need on the ground. I repeat that the network has failed. Unless there is a substantial change in funding models from the Commonwealth then this is going to create all sorts of productivity problems for the nation. I am not in the camp that says a Pape case in the High Court rules it out. I am watching closely to see another case, the Williams case, to see whether it does. I think we should buy some time on constitutional recognition and make it a financial issue and address it.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:11): I support the general thrust of the member for Lyne's motion. While I would not specifically single out the GST as the revenue source, it is clear that local government does indeed need access to growth funding. Local government rates keep going up and up and that is hurting families. It is clear that there needs to be a better way of funding councils to deliver the local infrastructure that is vitally needed in the community.
There are limited options for councils to raise revenue. I have some detailed experience, having been a local government councillor for the better part of six years. About 83 per cent of the revenue that councils have to play with across the nation is their own sourced revenue. Rates make up about 37 per cent of that, and that is a direct slug on many families out there. We have charges for goods and services, and increasingly councils are moving towards a user-pays system for basic services. For example, a person dumping a ute load of rubbish at the tip is now charged for doing that. This is what councils are moving to, and 29 per cent of their revenue comes from those charges. Other charges, such as fines and developer contributions, make up around 14 per cent of their revenue. Again, that is a hit on the community. It is indirect in some cases, such as developer contributions, which flow through to the cost of owning a new home. These are the sources that councils currently get their finance from. Every time that new infrastructure, or even maintenance of existing structure, is required they look to ratchet up those fees.
I say you cannot just do that. I remember being in a private council meeting where we were looking at the budget numbers and the list of infrastructure that was needed. It turned out that there needed to be a 13 per cent rate rise to fund only what was required. Rates were going up to about $2½ thousand per household. My reaction was, 'When do we hit the limit here?' It gets to the stage where you cannot charge the community any more. You will get a situation where people just cannot afford to live in their own homes. There were blank stares and nobody knew the answer to that question, because infrastructure costs keep going up and up. In Queensland, 88 per cent of council funding comes from own sourced revenue. That is a direct result of the state government pulling out. They had subsidies in place for water and sewerage infrastructure. But they removed those subsidies, so now that burden falls on homeowners. There is a lot of uncertainty for councils as a result, because they just do not know in situations like that, where the states pull out. That really stuffs up forward budgeting. About 8½ per cent of funding to local government comes from the federal government and about 8½ per cent comes from the states, but that goes up and down. There needs to be some certainty.
With regard to the constitutional recognition issue, I disagree with the motion before the House. Constitutional recognition is vitally important. The Pape case showed that there was great uncertainty about direct federal funding to local government. In fact, George Williams, renowned legal expert, says that there is no constitutional validity for it. That is ultimately deserved and it will stop situations like that which we had in Queensland, where the Beattie government, with the support of the current Premier, Anna Bligh, and the then local government minister, Andrew Fraser, rode roughshod over local communities and amalgamated councils left, right and centre, where there was no community of interest for those councils. There is no better reason than that than to have constitutional recognition. So, to sum up, there needs to be growth funding— (Time expired)
Ms BURKE (Chisholm—Deputy Speaker) (11:16): I am feeling a sense of deja vu this week, firstly, being back in my role as the Deputy Speaker from the last parliament and, secondly, completely with respect to the motion before the House.
One of the first committee inquiries that I was involved in in this place was a cost-shifting inquiry into local government. We handed down a phenomenal report in October 2003 entitled Rates and taxes: a fair share for responsible local government. Now, in 2012, we are again having the same debate, we are arguing the same issues and we are looking at the same things. The committee that handed down this report worked incredibly hard. We went to every state and territory and to every local government that we could. The inquiry received more submissions than any other inquiry I have ever been involved in—even more than the inquiry on the clean energy bills, which I have just done.
We raised a level of expectation that we would resolve something, and of course, tragically, we did not. I think it is one of the failures of the committee system. We went out, asked people to give us ideas with which to produce something, and here we are dealing with a motion to do with what the report looked at originally—cost-shifting. At the time, the federal Liberal government was looking at the issue of Labor states pushing things back onto local councils, but of course we found that everybody was pushing back onto local councils. It was across the board: local council was pushing back onto states and the states were pushing back onto the feds and everybody, in turn, was pushing back onto the poor taxpayers.
The report, at page 115, summed it up for most people:
Following a meeting of the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council in July 2003, the President of MAV—
Municipal Association of Victoria—
was quoted as saying:
Unless we see a reappraisal of the current tax base of local governments, councils will need to continue to go out to ratepayers cap in hand on an annual basis.
… The MAV would investigate several options, including a suggestion that part of the State Government’s GST funds be set aside for councils.
That was the original suggestion in the first Howard GST bill. He actually came out and said that they wanted to propose that the states resume responsibility for providing financial assistance grants to local government from 1 July 2000. So the feds would get out of this space all together, the GST would go to the states and the states would then have responsibility for passing everything on to local government, overtaking what we now know as the FAGs system. Payments would be made under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, with heads of government signed at the 1990 Premiers Conference.
But under the agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats to modify the goods and services tax and implement a package of other proposals, the government agreed to retain responsibility for assisting local government, and that was a good thing, otherwise local government would have been ripped off at the time. There was not going to be any more money; there was actually going to be less. The Dems got a bit of a caning at the time for introducing and doing this, but they actually saved local government from getting less than their fair share.
I am not saying that this motion is not important and I am not saying that my committee inquiry was not important, because we now know—and we have known for years—that the push-back is onto ratepayers and is onto local government. And, as all the other speakers have said, one of the things we looked at is: what is the responsibility of local government? It is, 'How long is a piece of string?' Each council does something different. Look at Brisbane City Council. Look at the ACT government, which acts as the local council. Look at shire councils around the place which run ports and airfields. In my community they run nursing homes and childcare centres. What are they responsible for? The difficulty is that they become responsible for whatever the community wants or demands. They become the last man standing and they fill the void. This happens in rural settings in particular, where it is harder to say to your community that you are not going to fund that youth worker this week because the state government has pulled out the funding or that you are not going to fill that pothole because you did not get any federal money to do that. So local council becomes the meat in the sandwich.
The main aim of this inquiry and this report was to say that the three levels of government need to get together and work better together. They need to understand what each is doing, what each is raising, and then work it through, as opposed to just buck-shifting. Councils also need to learn to say no to ratepayers, state governments and the federal government. They need to say it is not their responsibility and they are not going to fill that void. That is really hard. I have said to my local councillors that their job is a lot harder than mine. Everybody knows who they are. When a bin is not picked up, it is their fault. But if something happens at a federal level nobody is going to find and abuse their federal member of parliament. So local councils do find it difficult to say no. I think it is a really difficult thing, but we need to get the three levels of government together and resolve this now so that we do not keep going around in circles.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:21): I endorse the remarks made by previous speakers on this extremely important topic, especially the member for Parkes and the member for Dawson, who have considerable experience in local government. I also acknowledge the remarks made by the member for Chisholm. Indeed, everything falls back on local government to provide absolutely everything in their community. As the member for Parkes so correctly pointed out, it is not just about roads, rates and rubbish anymore; it is everything from childcare centres to counselling services. You name it, local government has to provide it. That is why recognition of local government in the Constitution is so important. We have seen all too often where federal government money intended to go to local government ends up going through the bureaucracy of state governments and so little of it trickles down the line to where it is most needed.
When it comes to roads, that is where local government does provide such a great service, but they do it with such little funding these days and there is only a limited revenue base for local governments to get their money from. In my local government area the Wagga Wagga City Council has just imposed parking fees at the local airport in an endeavour to raise more funds. Tumut Shire Council is desperately seeking funding at the moment for Gocup Road. Prior to the 2010 election the coalition committed $11 million of funding to this state road. Gocup Road provides a vital service in the Snowy Mountains area for tourism but more importantly for Visy Industries, a multi-billion-dollar industry providing many hundreds of jobs for the Tumut shire. This road, which is very winding and very narrow, has to support not just heavy haulage B-double trucks and semitrailers but also school buses. It is not a good mix and it is going to end in tragedy if something is not done to help Gocup Road. The new mayor of Tumut Shire Council, Councillor John Larter, and his very hardworking general manager, Bob Stewart, have asked me to lobby the government to provide much-needed funding for Gocup Road. I have written to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, Simon Crean, to seek a meeting as an avenue to provide funding for this vital piece of infrastructure, which is so important to the Riverina and Tumut shire. It has been said that there is no argument for recognition of local government in the Constitution. In the Pape v Commissioner of Taxation matter it was determined that:
… the Commonwealth does not possess the power to fund whatever bodies and activities it desires. It may only directly expend federal money in areas where the Commonwealth can demonstrate that it has a specific power under the Australian Constitution to do so.
The Commonwealth does not have any general power under the Constitution to regulate or fund local government.
That is why it is so important that local government be recognised in the Constitution. The Commonwealth, as the overarching government in this nation, has to be able to provide money directly to local government so that money can go to the areas where it is so desperately needed. Road funding is one of those all-important areas.
In New South Wales the percentage of own-source revenue in 2005-06 was 84 per cent, so you can see how limited local government is in providing its own revenue when there are so many demands to provide avenues of community help and assistance. Particularly in New South Wales, where rates are capped, there are very limited opportunities for local governments to be able to provide the sorts of infrastructure that people demand and expect of their local shire councils. Roads, as the member for Parkes pointed out, are the lifeblood of this nation. Every grocery item that ends up in a metropolitan supermarket starts its life on a local government road in regional Australia. It is high time that local councils were able to access more money from the federal government to provide that infrastructure.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:26): I thank the chamber for the opportunity to be able to speak briefly on this motion moved by the member for Lyne. I know there is keen interest among all of us in our local governments, and many members of the House were formerly members of local governments across the nation, as the member for Dawson was. Over the years, many constituents in my electorate have brought up this issue and the subject of taxes and the GST. They have often said to me that, when the GST was implemented back in 2001, their understanding was that it would result in the elimination of stamp duties and a whole range of other taxes across the board by the states. They relay all this to me: they voted in a GST back then because they were told it would cause the abolition of all the state taxes that were dogging them in their private and public lives at the time. People believed that would be the case in the post-2001 period—that is, with the introduction of the GST many taxes were going to be taken off, including the stamp duties in the states—and they feel that they did not get that deal and that they were perhaps dudded or conned. That is the feeling of the constituency out there; that is what I am hearing.
When we look at the GST and we look at what the proceeds could or should be used for, I always go back to that deal that the members of the community in my electorate thought they were signing up for originally and the fulfilment of that deal. As far as I am concerned, that deal has not yet been fulfilled. People expected stamp duties and a whole range of state taxes to have been abolished and they are still waiting for it a decade on. That is the impression out there in the real world. I think we should see how that particular deal the former government spoke about back in 2000 and 2001 can be honoured. Only after it has been honoured would I look to other things that could be done with the proceeds of the goods and services tax.
I do not have an objection to funds raised by the Commonwealth going directly to local governments, and we see that happening across the country more and more. For example, recently in my own electorate, in the suburb of Glenelg in the local government area of the City of Holdfast Bay, we saw a brand new bridge built. Nearly $3.5 million came directly from the federal government to Holdfast Bay to partially fund the replacement of a bridge that had concrete cancer. Mayor Ken Rolland—a very good mayor who does an extremely good job in Holdfast Bay—was running to local and state governments, everywhere, to get the funding for the bridge, but he could not secure it. We then tried to get funding through the federal government, and can I say that I was very pleased to be able to secure the money for the bridge in the Holdfast Bay council area. The old King Street Bridge has now been renamed the Michael Herbert Bridge. I was very pleased to be with the mayor not that long ago to conduct the opening of this wonderful bridge, which carries about 10,000 vehicles every day. This is an example of direct funding from the federal government to a local government.
As I said, I do not have an objection to Commonwealth funding or any funds being raised by the Commonwealth going directly to local governments; but, at the same time, I cannot support this motion as it would delay or further diminish the likelihood of the deal that was struck between the previous government and the public being honoured. It so happens that that deal included more taxes than stamp duty. Some have been abolished, to be fair; but the matter is not settled. It seems that representatives from the community, including the business community, are not content with the situation as it stands. They, too, acknowledge that there is more work to be done towards the fulfilment of the original promise of displacing all state taxes with the GST.
The tax summit that was convened by the government in October 2011 bore witness to this perspective by everyone who submitted or contributed to it. The tax summit concluded on a desire to reform state based taxation with the states and to develop agreement across the country on a system of taxation which diminishes the economic drag of taxation— (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Iraq
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Hayes:
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.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:31): I want to draw the attention of the House to the ongoing persecution faced by a number of religious minorities in Iraq. These religious minorities include various Christian groups such as the Chaldean Catholics, the indigenous Assyrians, Sabean Mandaeans, Syriacs and other Aramaic speakers who have all called the geographic area of Iraq as home for the last 2,000 years.
There are a number of undisputed reports by global organisations such as Amnesty International, UNHCR and the Catholic Church which clearly indicate that members of these ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq are subject to continuous persecution, often to the point of death. These reports also indicate that their persecution has clearly escalated since the 2003 involvement of the coalition of the willing in Iraq. According to the US State Department, prior to 2003 Christian leaders estimated that up to 1.4 million Christians and other religious minorities were living in Iraq. The latest figures show that the numbers have decreased to less than 400,000. Although the decrease is largely due to people fleeing to neighbouring countries, there have been many instances where people have been subject to targeted killings.
I spoke in this parliament in late 2010 when Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church in Baghdad was stormed by armed Islamic militants and 52 people were killed. The group that claimed responsibility, the Islamic State of Iraq, has publicly identified that their purpose is to rid the country of Christians and other minorities. These minorities have been declared legitimate public targets. This must cause great concern to us all as this is about ethnic cleansing.
In 2005 letters were distributed to the houses and businesses of Mandaeans demanding them to convert, leave Iraq or face death. Understandably, many fled as a result. I also understand that threatening posters have been put up on people's homes and shops demanding they leave the area within three days.
I recall the story of Nijem Abdallah, who had relatives who died in the attack on Our Lady of Salvation church in Baghdad. He previously owned a shop in Iraq but was forced to give it up and flee to Jordan due to constant harassment and threats to his and his son's life. Many, like Nijem, risk their lives all over again during the dangerous trip in search of a safe refuge. The roads of western Iraq, which lead to Syria and Jordan, have often been described as deadly dangerous—and for very, very good reasons—as people travel these roads without protection as they seek safety in neighbouring countries.
Those who are lucky enough to escape to neighbouring Syria, Jordan or Egypt often find themselves lacking basic facilities, essential human rights and the necessities of life. These countries are facing or have been subject to recent significant political unrest of their own and there is a lack of adequate resources for dealing with the growing number of refugees, not only in providing the necessities of life but also providing protection.
According to the Catholic Church, in a report that was released a little while back, as many as 1.2 million people have left Iraq since the invasion in 2003. Those who make it to a country like Syria usually stick together in what would generally be regarded as very much working-class suburbs, like Jaramanah, on the eastern outskirts of Damascus, where there is not a high prospect for the future. As a matter of fact, you would have to describe it as barely making ends meet and as barely a matter of survival. Refugees International reports that these people are being exploited and charged exorbitant prices for rent and other basic needs. The report further states that they are trapped in these miserable conditions, with little to no chance of a safe return to Iraq. They are increasingly becoming destitute, with little means of support.
For the Sabian Mandaeans the biggest threat is extinction itself. It is estimated that there are approximately 60,000 to 70,000 Mandaeans in the world today. A decade ago this was the number of Mandaeans living in Iraq alone. This number has now decreased to anywhere between 3,000 to 5,000, depending on the various reports. Mandaeans are followers of John the Baptist. They are a relatively little-known group that migrated from Palestine to the regions of southern Iraq in the 2nd century AD. They are pacifists and therefore handling of weapons is contrary to their belief. As a result, this has put them at risk and disadvantage, being in a war zone in southern Iraq.
Prior to the Iraq war, Mandaeans held a guarded yet solid position in the life of Iraq. Many were prominent lawyers, university professors and quite often successful artisans and gold and silver smiths. Like other groups in Iraq, Mandaeans have faced violence at the hands of sectarian and criminal groups. They face further discrimination and threats upon escaping to neighbouring countries. As I stated earlier, these countries have no resources to deal with the numbers of refugees fleeing Iraq. In Syria, the Mandaean religion is not recognised and there are no places of worship. They are not allowed to marry or mark their religion on the birth certificates of their newborn children. They are not allowed to legally work and are the target of forced conversion to Islam. They are also living under constant threat of deportation back to Iraq.
Mandaean refugees across the Middle East face a bleak future and inevitably extinction without the aid of the international community. Due to the small numbers of Mandaeans who are left, it is imperative that they are relocated to countries with already-established communities. The answer is not for them to be further dispersed and isolated.
There are approximately 6,500 Mandaeans residing in Australia; many live within my electorate of Fowler and Laurie Ferguson's electorate of Werriwa. I hold regular meetings with representatives of the various minority groups from Iraq. Amad Mtashar is a frequent visitor to my office and a powerful advocate for the Mandaean community. On the weekend, I met with His Excellency Mar Jabriel Kassab, the Archbishop of the Chaldean Catholic Diocese of Australia and New Zealand, and also Samir Yousif, the Secretary of the Chaldean National Congress for Australia and New Zealand. Another person who is very much involved with the issues in Iraq is Hermiz Shahen, the Secretary of the Assyrian National Alliance. He has requested that I travel to Iraq in the very near future to see for myself the conditions that Assyrians and other Christian minorities labour under.
There is a need for a more compassionate response from the international community towards the growing humanitarian crisis faced by the religious and ethnic minorities both in Iraq and escaping Iraq. We have a moral responsibility as members of the global community who are fortunate enough to live in peace and prosperity. Our obligation also comes from the fact that the situation has worsened significantly since the coalition troops entered Iraq. Because of our involvement in that operation, Australia has an added moral responsibility to do everything it can to raise awareness of the issues and to assist the global community in ensuring protection of the victims.
I think this is an issue that should be addressed by the parliament. It is regrettable that, I understand, the opposition do not intend to have a speaker in this debate. This is something we have an obligation to do, as we were members of the coalition of the willing.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:42): There are many by-products of the allied intervention in Iraq. On a positive front there was the establishment of Kurdish autonomy and a movement towards more democratic institutions. But there are also multiple and very serious downsides: rampant malnutrition, a very high rate of death of young children and the destruction of the country's electricity and sanitation infrastructure—particularly in Baghdad. Another by-product, which the previous speaker touched upon and which I am pleased to say gained a bit more national coverage through the ABC's religious program in the last year, is the situation of the Mandaeans and other Christian groups in Iraq.
There is some conjecture about the derivation of the Mandaeans. On one side there are indications from their marriage rituals that they do stem from Judaism. They speak a dialect of Aramaic. Importantly, they do not believe in proselytising, so the point made about their very survival is crucial, because they do not recruit new members and so there is no real sense of growth potential. Importantly, as noted previously, they are also pacifists. They are a monotheistic group with their own particular religious documents. They heavily emphasise ritual—most crucially, the question of baptism. Baptism accompanies many other ceremonies, such as marriage. It is important for them in Australia and internationally. I have to say that I believe we have been more liberal than the United States with regard to access to clean waterways for baptism, which is a very central part of their core.
Australia has joined Sweden as a recipient nation for the various Christian groups from the Middle East. I had the privilege in a delegation recently to visit Sodertalje in Sweden, which is well known internationally for the high prevalence of Iraqi Christians, most particularly Syriacs, Chaldeans and Assyrians, but also Mandaeans. When I came back I provided some material to the Mayor of Fairfield about activities in Sodertalje. As alluded to earlier, this group is so small internationally and so dispersed that there is a challenge to their continued existence. This brings up a debate, when they contact us, as to whether Australia should actually take all of them. That is, of course, a challenging concept in an intake of only 13½ thousand a year. On the one hand we have a group that is struggling for its very existence but on the other hand we have the competing demands of so many other areas around the world.
The program on the ABC highlighted the very strong inclination of this group to retain their culture whilst, particularly in the case of children, integrating into Australia. The member for Fowler and I have attended many New Year events and other similar festivities. One thing that strikes you, and it was demonstrated by the ABC program, is the degree to which the children are part of the Australian education system. If you go to these events, the music is in a disco style for young Australians. The very strong message from Ahmed Mutasha and others is that they are very much here to stay; they are integrated into society and they are participating in our civic life.
Obviously the intervention by Allied forces meant that, in many cases, the already existing underlying bigotry in Iraqi society, which was perhaps smashed down by the Saddam Hussein regime, was basically allowed to escape. Additionally, these groups were, in a sense, blamed for being part of the intervention. You might have had Tariq Ali and other Christians in some prominent positions in society but, once the Allies intervened, many people saw the Christian groups as Western oriented and aligned with the West and therefore partly responsible for the destruction of Iraqi society. That increased the fervent hostility and discrimination towards them. This has taken many forms, including kidnappings and extortion. Extortions are not confined to them but, because of their previous concentration in the occupations of goldsmithing and silversmithing, they are perceived to be people with money, so extortion obviously concentrates disproportionally upon them. They are also subjected to attempts at forced conversion to Islam—and this is not confined to them in the Middle East or Africa—and restrictions in society, discrimination et cetera.
An added problem in recent months has been the situation in Syria. Syria, for its many faults, has provided a degree of protection for Iraqi Christians fleeing in the Middle East region. Obviously the Assad regime, being an ally, tries to continue an alliance with Christian groups against the Sunni majority. That is why they have been quite liberal in allowing access to that country for this purpose. I note that the UNHCR has commented of their situation:
Once prominent goldsmiths, lawyers and doctors in Iraq, Mendaeans continue to be forced to convert to Islam or to leave the country, according to Mendaean sources in Damascus.
They go on to note that women without headscarves are currently major targets in the society, and others are forced to marry Muslim men et cetera.
We are facing a situation where dispersal means that the community is very threatened. Unless you have a concentration of numbers then it is hard to keep up practices, hard to retain culture and language. This is a crucial challenge to countries such as the United States, Sweden and Australia, which have been the countries most inclined to provide some protection. In 2002 the United States granted the Mendaeans protected status, but the situation in the United States in the interim has been very up and down in regard to the degree to which they have given access.
We in Australia have a very strong Mendaean community in the Western Sydney region from Liverpool outwards. I see many cases from this community about individuals who are in very strange circumstances in Syria, people who have had family members targeted and murdered. We are saying today that this situation should be recognised and that, when we consider Australia's humanitarian refugee intake under our immigration policy, we should continue to recognise the plight of these people. As I say, it is going to be intensified if the regime in Syria is indeed replaced. One negative aspect of that, and it is very difficult to see that it will be otherwise, is that there will be an increase in Sunni fundamentalism and hostility towards minorities. I hope otherwise, but it certainly is a possible outcome.
I join with the member for Fowler in expressing some concern that this important matter has not occasioned much interest from the opposition. I would have thought that historically there were people who had taken an interest in this region and who had ties with the Mandaeans in Sydney. I commend the resolution.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:50): Since the first Gulf War some 20 years ago and then the second Gulf War a decade ago, a great number of refugees from Iraq—predominantly Christian and predominantly from the Chaldean, Assyrian and Syriac communities, but also Mandaeans—have come to Australia as refugees and asylum seekers, fleeing the ravages of war and instability and settling across Australia. Many have settled in my electorate of Calwell. In fact, the Chaldeans are our largest emerging community.
In the time I have been the member for Calwell I have had the opportunity to get to know the Chaldean, Assyrian and Syriac communities well. In the relatively short period of their settlement here in Australia they have settled well. They have built homes, they are educating their children, they are developing businesses and they are making a good contribution overall to our community. They always tell me that the thing they value most about living in Australia is the freedoms of our democracy, which allows them to celebrate their culture and language and also practice their faith without fear. They value the stability of our democracy and appreciate the opportunity to live in our multicultural society, and they embrace Australian citizenship in great numbers—adding to our diverse cultural expression.
However, the same cannot be said about the families, the people and the country they have left behind. Thousands of Iraqis, predominantly Christian minorities, and Sabian Mandaeans were forced to flee from the brutalities of war and persecution in Iraq. Although thousands now call Australia home, they remain concerned about the ongoing violent persecution of minorities in Iraq. Although nominally it is said that the war in Iraq is over and that the mission has been accomplished, the situation in Iraq remains precarious to say the very least. The political stability required to underpin the development of democratic institutions is not there, and many people belonging to the various minorities in Iraq continue to leave the country and look for asylum, especially here in Australia.
The anxiety my constituents from Iraq feel is still intense and very real, especially because they have family who are either still in Iraq or have fled to refugee camps in neighbouring countries—families they eagerly await reunification with and whose welfare they are very much concerned about. In my ongoing and frequent meetings with them they consistently request that the Australian government assist in pressuring the Iraqi government to secure the freedom and rights of minority peoples who have centuries-old associations and identification with Iraq and its indigenous peoples.
While we may have removed our troops from Iraq, we were very much a part of the execution of the war there, and our responsibility towards Iraq and its future is far from over. Iraq remains a politically volatile place. Constant bombings see no end to the killing of innocent civilians, and many people who are still left behind increasingly feel more insecure and afraid. Our responsibility is to ensure that Australia remains actively engaged in the future prosperity of Iraq.
I recently received in my office Mr. Amir Goga, who is a member of the parliament of the Kurdistan region for the Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council list. He impressed upon me in no uncertain terms that the situation of minorities in Iraq remains perilous. He spoke of the many cantons of security pockets that are being created, each with their own competing militias continuing to threaten the stability and security of the minority Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs and Mandaeans.
This parliament rightly condemns persecution and violence against minorities, especially on the basis of their faith. I want to congratulate the member for Fowler for bringing this private member's motion to the House today. The history of Christians in the Middle East goes back centuries. The war in Iraq was initially justified on the basis that we had to rid the world of the threat embodied in the person of Saddam Hussein and the so-called weapons of mass destruction. We got rid of Saddam Hussein and we proclaimed an end to the war in Iraq. However, Iraq now lies in political and social ruin. Nobody you talk to from Iraq—and I talk to many people—will tell you that things have improved. All evidence points to continuing violence towards civilians generally and minorities in particular. Not only should we condemn these attacks but we have a moral responsibility to make every effort possible to help the people of Iraq create the peace and security they were promised and for which they paid and continue to pay very dearly. It was the Howard government that committed Australia to the coalition of the willing, so I am very disappointed that no member of the opposition has stood up in this very important motion to speak in defence of the minorities, especially Christians, in Iraq who are constantly being persecuted and have had lots of violence perpetrated against them. It is very disappointing.
Democratic stability in Iraq was supposed to give people freedoms to secure the human rights and political expressions of the Iraqi people. It has not done that. On the contrary, the violence against Sabian Mandaeans and other minority groups in Iraq is a testament to this. My colleagues have spoken about the historical connections of the Mandaean people to the region known as Iraq today. The ancient faiths and cultures of the region are embodied in the Mandaean culture. There is a remaining community of only 5,000 Sabians in Iraq. Ironically, there are some 5,000 living in Australia, and countless thousands of others have been forced to flee their native homelands. As my colleague noted, most of the Mandaean community has settled in Western Sydney and, like other Iraqi refugees, are very grateful to be living in Australia.
This parliament has a moral obligation to do whatever it can to assist the minorities that are trying to make a living and establish a life. A lot of Iraqis do not want to leave Iraq; they are forced to leave. Many of them would like to see genuine stability come to Iraq so they can actually get on with their lives. They were promised this when we went to war some 10 years ago but it has not been delivered yet. This parliament should do whatever it can to ensure that Australia remains actively engaged in the future stability and prosperity of Iraq.
Debate adjourned.
Renewable Energy
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Bandt:
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.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:58): We are facing a severe threat from climate change. That is why the Greens have pushed so hard to cut pollution and make clean energy cheaper. It is why we have worked with the government to bring about the clean energy package, including a price on pollution and $13 billion for clean and renewable energy. It is why we will continue to work hard to prevent the building of any new coal fired power stations in this country. So we are appalled by the latest decision of the government to extend to HRL Limited a further extension of time on meeting conditions for a $100 million grant offered to the company by the Howard government. Building a new coal power station while trying to cut pollution is an incredible case of putting your foot on the accelerator and the brake at the same time.
In 2007, HRL was awarded $100 million, under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, for their $750 million 400 megawatt power station despite strong concerns about its economic and technical risks from the expert panel reviewing the grant. In fact, the expert panel reviewing HRL's application put HRL in the category of 'not recommended for funding'. HRL actually wanted more than the $100 million but the Commonwealth would not give it to them, which is why a Victorian government grant then emerged. The 400 megawatt power station was supposed to be up and running by 2009. Clearly, it was not. In 2009, HRL's joint venture partner, Chinese company Harbin, pulled out of the project. Harbin were providing $500 million to it. In Senate estimates, the department of energy has acknowledged that HRL have been given an extension on at least three occasions. In 2010, HRL emerged as a 600-megawatt project. But again the federal and state grants continued to be offered. Last year, HRL was set a deadline of 31 December 2011 to meet the conditions of their grants. This date was confirmed by the Prime Minister. Now the government has given them a further six months extension on meeting those conditions.
Yet at the same time, last week, the minister, the member for Batman and the Minister for Resources and Energy, cut a grant to the Moree solar farm project, which failed to meet a milestone on a grant that they have held for the past eight months. Eight months and one milestone missed versus five years and missed deadlines all over the place. Yet the Moree project got the chop while more money was made available for coal fired power stations. The member for Batman, the minister, Martin Ferguson, is proving to be a minister for the 20th century and showing his real priorities. He would rather prop up a serially failing company trying to build a coal power station than support a solar farm.
There are serious questions about the economic viability of this proposal. Even if it could get off the ground, it would only reduce brown coal emissions to the intensity of a black coal power station in New South Wales. It risks entrenching the continued burning of brown coal when it should be replaced with renewable energy. I know that some of the members who follow me may say that the extension has been given because of a VCAT case. But that does not stack up. When the deadline was first set, it was clear that HRL's partial EPA works approval was already going to court and would hold up the project for months. Secondly, the legal approval was just one of three conditions that HRL had to meet. As of October last year, we know that they had not met any of them.
The costs of the HRL project have increased from $750 million to $1.3 billion. However, as delays in executing HRL's contract with the China National Electric Equipment Corporation to build the plant equipment will increase the project's cost it is fair to assume that somewhere in the order of $1.5 billion is reasonable now.
The scientists on the Climate Commission have told us that, if we are to have a better than even chance of defeating runaway climate change, countries like Australia need to decarbonise our economy by 2040 at the latest. That means very simply moving as quickly as we possibly can to having this country powered by renewable energy. To potentially offer a company $100 million to build a new coal fired power station at a time when the Treasury modelling of the climate package says that no new commercial coal fired power stations can be built is putting one's feet on the accelerator and the brake at the same time. That is climate change madness.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:03): I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Melbourne. Due to the limited period of time that I have, I would like to concentrate on clause 1(e) of the motion, which states 'the Australian community strongly supports public funds being used to support the development of renewable technologies'. That assertion may have well been true in the past, as for almost two decades the Australian public has been bombarded daily with idyllic utopian images of polished white wind turbines rising from manicured green meadows against a pristine blue sky. But the public, not only in Australia but around the world, are beginning to wake up to this dangerous fallacy of using public funds to subsidise so-called renewable energy.
Firstly, wind turbines are a grossly inefficient way to generate electricity. In a sane world, no-one in their right mind would dream of building a wind turbine unless they were guaranteed a huge taxpayer subsidy. And the claim that industrial wind turbines are a renewable technology is a perversion of the language. Like all mechanical structures, wind turbines will eventually wear out. In 20 years time, if not before, our countryside will be littered with useless, rusting, broken wind turbines—a scar and a blight on our landscape, serving as a monument to a time when a generation took leave of logic and reason. Before we rush to spend more public funds on so-called renewable energy, we should take heed of the Spanish experiment, where the socialist government used public funds in an attempt to make that country a leader in renewable energy. The evidence from the Spanish experiment is in. It has proved nothing other than a national disaster and created an economic nightmare. By wasting billions on inefficient, so-called renewable energy Spain has created a vicious circle of declining prosperity and declining competitiveness. Spain now has 23 per cent unemployment, and its unemployment rate for people under 25 is a staggering 48 per cent. Social cohesion is collapsing in Spain. Poverty, homelessness and crime are all on the rise—as are depression, suicide rates and countless personal tragedies. As for the lowering of CO2 emissions—the very reason for handing out these subsidies in the first place—they have increased more than 30 per cent.
The message is clear: spending taxpayers' funds on inefficient so-called renewable energy, or on any other inefficient process of production, is a recipe for destroying jobs, damaging the economy and increasing poverty and hardship. At least the Spanish have woken up. Earlier this year they passed a decree halting subsidies for renewable energy projects. Likewise, Germany has announced that it is phasing out unaffordable solar subsidy regimes entirely by 2017. Last week, in the UK, more than 100 members from different parties wrote to their Prime Minister demanding cuts to the £500 million a year paid in subsidies. In the USA, a recent study has warned that the US government could lose $2.5 billion in loans given to so-called renewable energy projects. Australia must learn from these mistakes.
The greatest hypocrisy of renewable energy and wind turbines—even if you believe that we can and should reduce the temperature of the globe by reducing CO2 emissions—has been shown by two recent peer-reviewed studies which show that fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are increased, not reduced, by subsidising wind power. The report notes:
… energy users pay twice—
for power generated by wind—
once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on.
The second great hypocrisy is that, while our government seeks to prevent Australian coal being used in new, modern, efficient Australian coal fired power plants, we are willing to ship that coal to China for China to roll out a new coal fired power plant every week to use.
As an ex-prime minister once said, 'Global warming is the greatest moral challenge we face'. I say the greatest moral challenge we face is to use logic and reason, and to speak out about the lunacy of diverting our limited and precious resources into hopelessly inefficient forms of so-called renewable energy generation. Our challenge is in staring down those zealots currently engaged in a colossal and dangerous act of self-deception and who will resort to bullying, threats and intimidation against anyone who questions their reckless and wasteful expenditure of public funds.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:08): First of all, I would like to make some comments on the member for Hughes' speech: windmills, I would say to him, windmills! They have had them in Holland for hundreds of years and they have been a very useful source of energy. People in every advanced human society are moving towards all forms of renewable energy. I found his remarks over the top. Spain does have a huge economic problem, but their economic problem is reflecting on their use of renewable energy, rather than the other way around.
I want to turn to this motion from the member for Melbourne, which I believe is seeking to bypass proper processes in the administration of Commonwealth grants. This reflects the double standards of the Greens. Two years ago, the member for Melbourne was—quite rightly—an active participant in the campaign seeking to have the Commonwealth government waive grant conditions to support the Solar Systems' Mildura solar project. With this motion, he is seeking to have the Commonwealth make decisions on the HRL project. This is inconsistent with his position of two years ago, when he rightly sought to give clean energy every opportunity to succeed. The member for Melbourne needs to be held accountable for these double standards. His motion is not about clean energy; it is a political campaign by the Greens. Let us get some facts on the table. Solar Systems and HRL were awarded grants in 2007 by the Howard government under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration program. Both projects have had difficulties. Yet now we are asked to waive grant conditions to HRL and move heaven and earth to support Solar Systems while rigorously doing everything we can to halt the HRL project. The government, on the other hand, has been fair and has treated both projects equitably in seeking to apply procedural fairness in giving the projects an opportunity to work through their issues and giving them an opportunity to succeed.
On Friday last week the Minister for Resources and Energy—an excellent minister—announced the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism had granted a six-month extension to the HRL project, giving them until 30 June 2012 to meet outstanding grant conditions, and the minister made it explicitly clear that this will be the last extension for the HRL project. This extension has been made because the HRL-Dual Gas project is currently subject to Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings. If that appeal goes against them, that is the law and we will all have to accept it. In the meantime, we have to apply what I regard as fairness to both projects. I would have thought that the member for Melbourne would understand the need for proper administration of grant programs in accordance with proper processes and the importance of not pre-empting judicial processes. Again, in my view, this is a political move by the Greens to grab a headline rather than genuinely support a range of clean energy technologies.
The government, however, understands the need to support clean energy technologies, whether they are solar, CCS or geothermal, as some examples. The government will continue to support clean energy technologies, including through the $3.2 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and will seek to give supported clean energy projects every chance of success, whether they are the Solar Systems Mildura project or the HRL-Dual Gas project. I wish the Greens would put aside their political campaigns against some forms of energy that they do not like and support genuinely clean energy rather than seek to chase a headline in the media.
One of the joys of being a member of the Labor Party is that we believe in egalitarianism. Some bloke working in the Latrobe Valley—a blue-collar worker—has as much right to aspire to a job, economic success and freedom as a person in North Fitzroy who has a PhD and who supports the Greens. One of the great things about this minister, the Labor government and our philosophy in general is that we want to do as Paul Keating said: let everyone drag themselves up; leave no-one behind. This is what applying fair processes is all about—leaving no-one behind. People in the Latrobe Valley are as valuable as people who live in North Fitzroy. This Labor government will not abandon them.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (12:12): I am pleased to join the debate and oppose both the content of the motion on funds for renewable energy and the flawed political philosophy surrounding it. It is yet another example of the Australian Greens adopting their 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' approach to the national economy. The views of the Greens would be amusing if they had not signed up to a formal agreement with the Gillard government and did not have so much influence both on the current Prime Minister and on the wider agenda being pursued by the government. I want to reflect for a moment on where Australia would be today if the Greens had been around to oppose every new development.
Let us start with dams. Australia would not have the Snowy Hydro scheme—one of the largest suppliers of renewable energy and often regarded as one of the great engineering feats of modern Australia. The irrigation system that the scheme supports helps to feed our nation and millions around the world. It simply would not have happened if the Greens had held a position of influence. The city of Melbourne, which the member who moved this motion represents in this place, would rely on tank water for its household supplies and industrial purposes because the Greens would never have allowed the construction of the Thomson Dam or any other storage in Melbourne's catchment. But that is just the start of it. Victoria would not even have a reliable baseload supply of electricity because the Greens would have opposed the development of the Latrobe Valley power industry.
Just as the Greens are opposing the HRL project—the subject of the motion before the House—they are opposed to all use of fossil fuels, which obviously includes the brown coal power industry and the generating sector which supported Victoria's development. Given the Latrobe Valley provides about 90 per cent of Victoria's energy needs, it is hard see what development could actually have occurred in Victoria if the Greens had been around to oppose every one of those projects in the 1940s and 1950s. This is where the rank hypocrisy of the Greens is illustrated for all to see. This is a party which is cosying up to the union movement and stealing political territory from the Australian Labor Party by talking about jobs, but it would effectively shut down jobs in any energy intensive industry. The member for Melbourne once worked as an industrial relations lawyer and acted on behalf of the CFMEU in a dispute between Latrobe Valley workers and management. Yet he participates in his party's vilification of the power industry and the communities which support it. And the list goes on. The Greens oppose the live exports industry in favour of boxed meat products, but their carbon approach will actually shut down the Australian abattoirs in the first place.
The Labor Party are continuing to run with the Greens agenda. I am not referring to the previous speaker, but there are plenty in the Labor Party who do. Just last Thursday the member for Wills was in this place tabling a petition calling on the House to withdraw federal funding for the HRL project. In his contribution the member for Wills talked about jobs and belittled the HRL project's potential to create 'just 35' ongoing operational jobs. Given that this government did not create any jobs in the past 12 months, I am not sure that any member opposite is in a position to be such a jobs snob and suggest that some jobs are not worthy or any project does not create enough employment. In any case, whatever the member for Wills has had to say, what he does not seem to appreciate—and the Greens have never pretended to understand—is that the provision of cheap, reliable base load electricity is one of the key competitive advantages of local businesses.
I will take up the previous speaker's comments in relation to the Latrobe Valley power station workers in just a moment. Last week the Minister for Resources and Energy was in the Latrobe Valley and he gave at least the impression of understanding how important the brown coal sector will be for the Latrobe Valley in the future. The minister was there supporting a $100 million project for carbon capture and storage. In his speech there were a couple of noteworthy points. First of all, the minister did not mention 'dirty brown coal' or 'big polluters' at any stage when he was in the Latrobe Valley. Yet we come into this place and we hear it every day of the week. Every day in this place during the great carbon tax debate, I heard members opposite vilify the very same workers that the previous speaker referred to in the Latrobe Valley, describing them as 'working for those dirty brown coal power generators' and vilifying them and the work that they have done on behalf of the Victorian community.
I do not actually believe the minister supports the carbon tax, in any case—though perhaps I am reading him wrong. He does not believe in the carbon tax because he knows it is a job killer in regional areas, like the Latrobe Valley, and he knows that it will only make things worse in the manufacturing sector.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: The member interjects. In his speech the minister waxed lyrical about the future possibilities of brown coal if the research and development related to CCS proved successful. He also announced the extension to the time frames of the HRL project. So while the member for Melbourne and the member for Wills come in here and attack the use of cheap and reliable base load energy from fossil fuels, the minister responsible is getting on with the job of actually securing Victoria's future energy needs and recognises the potential to keep using brown coal into the future.
I fear that it is only when the lights go out and the last manufacturing job is exported offshore that Australians will begin to understand how dangerous the Greens' policies are for the future of our nation. I oppose this motion and I condemn the Australian Greens for their hypocrisy and I call on members opposite to stand up for Latrobe Valley power station workers and actually do the right thing and abandon the carbon tax.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (12:17): One of the difficult things for me in any debate about energy is that we have to cast any discussion about this matter as though we are either entirely for existing forms of energy or we are entirely for newer forms—that there cannot be in some way, shape or form an intelligent use of alternative sources of energy that complement each other. It is simply a fact of life that, given coal reserves in this country, we will be dependent on coal for some considerable period of time.
I note that in discussion around this resolution there will be elements that will focus on opposition to certain parts of the resolution. My support for renewable energy is not just from an environmental perspective but also from an economic perspective. It is a statement of fact that, in our reliance on fossil fuels, we are relying on a finite resource. At some point in the future these resources will dwindle to such an extent that we will be required to use other forms of energy in a way that will accommodate a growth in energy use—which continues to increase year in and year out because of our lifestyle and because our economic development requires an ability to tap into reliable and constant forms of energy—and we need to be able to do it in a way that is efficient.
Anyone who supports renewable energy is not just an environmentalist but is also thinking, as we all do, from an economic perspective about an efficient use of resources. As a resource, particularly a finite one, becomes more and more expensive—because we are unable to find abundant sources of these resources—it is incumbent on us all, from the perspective of looking at what happens from environmental degradation but also from the perspective of the efficient use of resources, to find other ways to supplement energy generation. That is why I speak in favour of renewable energy. It is important that in the course of the last 12 months, and particularly in terms of the contribution made through the debate on putting a price on carbon, we have also seen as a result of putting a price on carbon that there will be impetus provided to look at smarter ways of generating energy that are also cleaner.
I am proud of being a member of a government that has not only introduced a carbon price from this year but will also through the renewable energy target provide a cross-subsidy of more than $20 billion to the renewable energy sector over the period. It will also, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, invest about $10 billion in renewable energy—$10 billion to find cleaner ways of generating energy and to use energy more efficiently through the application of technology. That will be done through a combination of loans, loan guarantees and equity investments and will also create the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, to consolidate $3.2 billion in government support for research and development and also demonstration, deployment and commercialisation of renewable energy. We are doing this for a variety of reasons, including obviously for the immediate impact of what we are doing in relation to introducing a clean energy future. A carbon price is part of that. It is also important that the sooner we start embracing renewable energy the better it is in terms of future generations, because, frankly, not doing anything on this is in effect cost-shifting to future generations, requiring them to deal with the economic impact of having dwindling finite fossil fuels to meet our energy requirements.
In saying that, my deep concern is that, in setting up the loans and the loan guarantees, there is certainty for business. My opposition to the member for Melbourne's motion is the concern that, while obviously we want to have the efficient use of government funding, we want to be able to do that in a way that does not arbitrarily remove grants from businesses that have secured them. It is my understanding that the minister has granted an extension of time, and it is the final extension of time, to HRL to deal with this. But as we find that renewable energy and renewable technologies do from time to time meet community opposition, and other factors as well, there will be a requirement for us to be flexible to work through an infant technology or a newer way of generating energy. My concern about this motion is that it arbitrarily removes funds supporting one applicant who had been awarded this under a previous government. We need to be smarter about the way in which we work with industry to achieve a goal that we all support: generating more renewable energy.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:22): It is interesting that the Greens are pushing Labor, the party it does a good job of controlling most of the time, to reallocate a $100 million grant to develop renewable energies. Usually when Greens leader Senator Bob Brown says jump, the Prime Minister replies, 'How high?'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member will be careful not to cause reflections on the Prime Minister.
Mr McCORMACK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Melbourne has a lot to say, considering he is the only Green among the 150 members of the House of Representatives. Senator Brown has way too much influence in national politics, given that the Greens make up just 10 of the 226 representatives in the two houses of parliament. The way he and his lot carry on, you would think he was running the place.
The trouble is the Prime Minister and the government are letting them. Just before the 2010 election the recently appointed, not elected, Prime Minister told the Australian public, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Then, with Senator Brown front and centre, she went back on her word and announced, just five short months and one week later, that there would be a carbon tax. Making the carbon tax double-cross, the Prime Minister said there would be a smooth transition in its implementation. But in the supposed clean energy future of the Prime Minister, Labor and the Greens, carbon will have a $23 a tonne price at the beginning, which will go up and up and up; jobs will be lost overseas when our industries cannot compete with countries in which there is no carbon tax and energy is produced using far more emissions than here; and Mr and Mrs Average will be hit hard every time they buy the family groceries, fill up their car or get their electricity or gas bills. This is all thanks to the Greens and the undemocratic power they seem to be able to wield over a Prime Minister who does anything and says anything merely to keep her job. Meantime, the temperature—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has been told. It is not appropriate to keep reflecting on the Prime Minister as such.
Mr McCORMACK: The Greens demanded an end to the 150-plus year tradition of cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine high country and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities caved in. Now, graziers are not permitted to take their cattle—which used to do a fantastic job of eating the grass, which would otherwise become a fire hazard—into national parks. These parks will in time become a tinderbox and the tragic fires that blackened Victoria in the recent past, taking lives and destroying properties, will sadly reoccur, all for the sake of giving in to the Greens, who would have this country return to pre-First-Fleet conditions, given the chance.
The Greens want all the water in the Murray-Darling to flow down the system and out to sea, without giving farmers a chance to grow the food to feed this nation, and a good many more as well. This is a dangerous party with radical ideas. It is not an environmental party. It has a social agenda to change the shape of how our nation, certainly regional Australia, does things.
There are significant faults with the member for Melbourne's proposal. I do believe that the government is kidding itself if it honestly believes that China is not continuing to build dirty coal-fired power stations. The government is delusional if it accepts that. Australia has enormous reserves of coal, and the emissions of our power stations are low compared with those of China, which has one of the world's fastest growing economies and no plans to introduce a carbon tax.
Australia's energy needs will only grow into the future, providing of course that the carbon tax and Labor do not virtually shut down our manufacturing and mining sectors. The Greens' obsession with renewable investment is not backed up with results. Wind turbines, in most areas, do not do the job they are purported to do and are credited with. Often they are a con, something that is certainly a visual impact but little in the way of power creation. They often are physically damaging and are psychologically damaging for those unfortunate enough to live close by.
If the Gillard-Brown government wants to spend an investment that has been set aside by the coalition to help this nation it ought to be ensuring that the $5.8 billion budgeted for water-saving infrastructure in the Murray-Darling starts to hit the ground. Such a move would also have positive environmental implications. The water such investment would save would go a long way towards fixing the perceived problems in the Murray-Darling.
At present we are more than half-way through the consultation period on a bad draft, which would devastate regional communities. For what? All for the sake of wetlands regenerated by recent flooding, and those wetlands have always dried off in times of drought. We have a plan based on a disastrous decade-long drought, yet there are ridiculous and wasteful calls for over-bank watering of wetlands, which have lasted millennia due to the continual cycle of drought and flooding rains.
The Greens are not to be trusted with their demands on the government, and getting Labor to reinvest HRL Ltd's $100 million grant is a reckless idea in itself. This is a government that cannot handle money. Its fiscal record is a litany of waste and over-runs. Having Labor transfer grant money and put it into another scheme hatched by the Greens is asking for another school halls fiasco or a pink batts disaster. How anyone can trust Labor and the Greens to deliver any good? People cannot. The sooner we have an election the better. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
D'Oliveira, Mr Basil Lewis
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Melham:
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.
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (12:28): A number of people have asked: why put a motion on the Notice Paper in relation to Basil D'Oliveira?
It is pretty obvious that this has something to do with cricket and with something beyond cricket. In a nutshell, his obituary, which was written in the Guardian by Peter Mason, summarises it, and I quote:
As a mixed race—in South African terms, 'coloured'—player of exceptional ability in his native Cape Town, he was denied the chance to play for the country of his birth by the racial segregation of the apartheid regime. When he went to play in England and became a Test player there, his eventual selection for the 1968-69 England tour to South Africa so offended the warped sensibilities of John Vorster's government that it refused to allow him to play, and the tour was cancelled. As a result, South Africa was exiled from international cricket until the fall of apartheid in 1994.
We know from Sir Michael Parkinson, who delivered a moving address, that Basil helped to change the political history of South Africa. Sir Michael Parkinson revealed how in a personal conversation Nelson Mandela told him how D'Oliveira played an important role in the lifting of apartheid. That came about in part because of D'Oliveira's quiet dignity when he was banned by Prime Minister Vorster from representing his adopted country.
Peter Mason went on to give a bit of background about that. He wrote:
With the 1968-69 tour of South Africa coming up the following winter, D'Oliveira refocused, and he hit a fighting 87 in the first test of the 1968 summer series against Australia. But it became clear that members of the cricketing establishment wanted to avoid the embarrassment of taking D'Oliveira to South Africa, and to widespread disbelief he played no further part in the Ashes series until the final test at the Oval, where he was a late substitute. Knowing that his place in history was riding on it, D'Oliveira rose to the challenge magnificently with a score of 158 to help England win the match and draw the series—and so topped the Test averages for the season.
For most commentators he had squarely made his case for inclusion in the squad to South Africa, but the MCC, which picked the touring team, felt otherwise. To general consternation and much recrimination, he was left out. Arlott summarised the mood when he said the MCC had 'never made a sadder, more dramatic or more potentially damaging selection', and the subsequent fallout turned into the worst crisis of the MCC's history. D'Oliveira, privately devastated to the point of physical collapse but publicly stoic throughout, received so many thousands of letters of support that the Post Office had to make special arrangements to deal with them—while the MCC was castigated by the media and the Labour government for cowardly appeasement of apartheid.
Chastened by the outraged response, the MCC found a way out. On 16 September 1968, the bowler Tom Cartwright pulled out of the tour with an injury, and the selectors brought D'Oliveira in, even though he was not a logical replacement for the slot that had been vacated. D'Oliveira and his supporters celebrated, but the moment was short-lived. Within three days, the South African government had made it clear that it would not allow him to play, and the MCC was forced to cancel the tour.
The decision was a great disappointment for D'Oliveira, who had wanted above all else to play Test cricket in his native land … When the 1970 South Africa tour of England was cancelled too, he batted with great success against a replacement Rest of the World side …
That is the background. In effect, that helped change the apartheid regime in South Africa and allowed South Africa back into the community of nations. Sport, frankly, was the way to do it.
I had my own little experiences of D'Oliveira. In the 1970-71 series in Australia, in which seven tests were played, the fourth test was played in Sydney in January. The seventh test was also played in Sydney. I was a paperboy selling papers at the Sydney Cricket Ground at that time for the Daily Mirror. I do not have a specific recollection of D'Oliveira in the fourth test but I do recall that the openers, Boycott and Luckhurst, put on a century partnership. D'Oliveira scored 56 in the second innings and took two wickets in the first innings.
When it came to the seventh test, which was played in February, I was again selling papers. Most of my recollection of that test is of Ray Illingworth leading the England side off the field after Snow was manhandled in the outer. He had felled Terry Jenner with a bouncer. I was selling papers on the hill that day and again I have no specific recollection of D'Oliveira. He is obviously in the books, having played with distinction. The hill crowd basically knocked out every single light on the SCG scoreboard, and the shutters had to be pulled up. There was a real tenseness around. Sport is something that Australians feel pretty strongly about, and so does everyone else.
I do have a vague recollection of D'Oliveira, but not as specific as the one I have now. He overcame great adversity. Indeed, it is said that he concealed his age by three years to allow himself to play test cricket. In later life his age was revealed. He was some 38 years of age when he played his first test against the West Indies on 16 June 1966. His last test was on 10 August 1972. This would have made him in his early forties, which is quite remarkable. Overall, his test record is 44 matches, 70 innings, eight not out and 2,484 runs. His highest score was 158, with an average of 40.06; five 100s; fifteen 50s; and 29 catches. His bowling career was 47 wickets at an average of 39.55.
The member for Bennelong knows how hard it is to play at an international level in any sport. To do that with the burden of many of your own countrymen on your shoulders—D'Oliveira was a 'coloured' and coloureds were banned in South Africa, so he had to go to England—puts an extra special burden on someone's shoulders. For him to succeed as he did was to become, in effect, a beacon. As has been said by those who wrote his obituary, it was from little things that big things grew. We saw with his exclusion from the South African tour an end to apartheid in South Africa and then the bringing of them back into the fold. The South Africans no doubt have a wonderful love of sport and so the exclusion of sporting teams from going to South Africa and their exclusion from going to other countries would have hurt them. We now see South Africa back in Rugby Union and certainly in cricket in a very competitive sense, but people are not being excluded on the basis of race. However, we still need to recognise that it is harder for those people to come through the ranks anyway because they have other burdens.
So what we have here is a very special person—someone who did, I think, help change the course of history in his own way. It is for this reason I felt it important that the parliament pause and recognise his contribution.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:38): I would like to recognise the kind words of the member for Banks. In an age where sports men and women are making significant contributions to race relations and global politics, Basil D'Oliveira, known affectionately as 'Dolly', is truly one of the greats. In the period of 1967-68 there was great social dislocation. Muhammad Ali's refusal to serve in Vietnam under the pretence that no Viet Cong had ever subjected him to racial taunts left behind an empowered new generation preferring to fight at home for the civil rights of their neighbours rather than for people thousands of kilometres away. American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave us that immortal image from the Mexico Olympics, standing on the dais, with black gloves raised in the air out of respect for the victims of race riots occurring back home. Australia's Peter Norman, who won a silver medal in the same race, supported his competitors' action by wearing a human rights badge. His reward was to never again be picked in an Australian team. Forty-four years later his time for that 200m race still stands as the best time ever run by an Australian. Two decades earlier Jackie Robinson had fought against the racial boundaries preventing African Americans from playing major league baseball and had won.
These legends all embraced their role on the public stage as a catalyst of change to bring people together in the fight against racism. But Dolly was different. He did not want the publicity. He did not want the politics. He just wanted to play cricket. His record on the pitch shows that he was one of the best all-rounders to have played the game. In the process he changed the face of international relations with apartheid South Africa.
Basil D'Oliveira grew up in Cape Town and was an obvious talent. Rising to captain the non-white national team, his exploits started to earn him a reputation overseas. He had scored over fifty centuries, including a cracking 225 runs in just 70 minutes of play, he had recorded a score of 46 off a single eight-ball over and had maintained a career batting average of over 100. With the ball he had taken over 100 wickets in three different seasons, including one game's figures of nine wickets for two runs. All this was achieved without any organised formal coaching, without proper cricket gear and on lumpy grass wickets that many of our national stars would struggle to bat on.
With a burning desire to play first class cricket, Dolly wrote to members of the British media and cricketing establishment in search of an opportunity. He wanted to play, to learn and then to return as a coach to the non-white league to help disadvantaged kids like himself. It was John Arlott, England's media equivalent to Richie Benaud, who convinced the Middleton Cricket Club in the Central Lancashire Cricket League to give this raw talent a chance. Starting in April 1960, Dolly had scored 930 runs at an average of 48 and had taken 71 wickets at 11 runs each by the end of his first season. In 1964 he became a British citizen, and two years later made his debut for the English national team.
Owing to the long road he had been forced to travel to make his international debut, Dolly was always guarded about his real age. Since his death we have learned that he made his test debut a few months shy of his 35th birthday—about the same age that current cricketers like Ponting and Hussey are being called on to retire.
In early 1968 England hosted Australia for an Ashes series, where Dolly dealt out a spectacular 158 in the final test—seemingly guaranteeing his place in the side for the upcoming tour of South Africa. However, motions behind the scenes displayed an ugly side of English cricket. The South African government, keen to protect their apartheid policies, wished to avoid the embarrassment of a non-white South African returning to their shores and beating them. An official from a South African tobacco company, clearly operating under instructions from the government, offered Dolly a financial package that would have set him up for life if he refused to tour. Dolly declined.
The South African Prime Minister threatened to cancel the tour if Dolly was named in the team. Meetings with the British Prime Minister failed to resolve the issue. Instead, claiming that Dolly was not one of the best 16 players in the English squad, the English cricket establishment omitted him from the team. This was despite his position on top of the English batting averages and second in the bowling and possessing superior knowledge of the South African conditions. The response from the English media, public and politicians was uniform in its outrage. Dolly stayed silent, instead focusing on his preparation for an upcoming county game. In the lead-up to the tour two English players declared themselves unfit to play, giving the MCC no option but to recall Dolly to the team.
On 17 September 1968, South Africa's Prime Minister announced he was not prepared to accept the side and the tour was cancelled. It is amazing to consider that the highest levels of government could become so involved in the selection of another nation's cricket team and, furthermore, to consider that this one decision started South Africa's isolation from international sport. It is a stain on our own history that the Australian national team continued with a tour of South Africa the year after the D'Oliveira affair, appearing to add some credibility to this woeful decision. It was only in 1970, in the lead-up to South Africa's tour of England, that anti-apartheid protests forced England to ban the tour. We followed suit the following year. In a sport mad nation like South Africa isolation from the world of sport is a crushing rebuke felt directly and immediately throughout the community. More than trade sanctions or the closure of embassies, it is through an individual's inability to represent their nation and the fans suppressed desire to cheer them on that real change can occur. Within a few years exemptions were being made to allow non-whites to tour. I clearly remember the great American, Arthur Ashe, being given an 'honorary white' visa so that he could play with us at Ellis Park.
Sport is a great leveller, a great unifier. Through participation in sport diplomatic walls can be broken, common interests can be found and friendly competition can be developed to patch over historical wounds. South Africa's return to international cricket in 1991, following the release of Nelson Mandela and the repealing of the apartheid laws, was hailed as a new dawn. Fifteen years later Ashwell Prince was selected as the first non-white captain of the national team—a moment that, without any doubt, would have made Dolly proud.
It is fitting to finish with the writings of this most humble man, Basil D'Oliveira, who did not seek to change the world but, through the sheer force of his brilliance on the cricket pitch and his strength of character off it, left an indelible mark on the world of sport and international politics:
I'll never forget the events of the summer of 1968 as long as I live. It was a nightmare, punctuated by occasional bouts of euphoria. Actions that had little to do with events on the cricket field meant that South Africa would inevitably be barred from Test Cricket and. Indeed, from most international sport. And the unwitting reason for that ban? ME!
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (12:46): Today we join with many others in recognising Basil D'Oliveira, a recipient of the CBE, the OBE, the 2004 announcement that games between South Africa and England would, in future, be fought for the Basil D'Oliveira Trophy and the subject of a resolution in the House of Commons which stated:
That this House recognises the passing of Basil D'Oliveira; and records its thanks for the dignified and courageous role he played in helping to do away with apartheid in South Africa and the important and critical part he played in changing history.
Of course sport has always had a connection with racial issues. The famous 1868 Aboriginal tour of Britain was followed the next year by a decision of the Victorian authorities that it would not occur again because they decided that, in future, Aboriginals would have to get permission from the Protector to leave the state. Eddie Gilbert was famous in this country and, if he had not been an Aboriginal,—and if he had not been a Queenslander as well, quite frankly—would have been selected in the Australian team.
When we look at people who have been involved in these issues around the world we look to Lloyd McDermott, the first Aboriginal Australian to play rugby for this country who, with other players, made himself unavailable for the tour of South Africa in 1963 as a matter of bringing these issues to the fore. On another front Peter Norman from Australia became famous for his role in 200-metre final in the 1968 Olympics.
The genesis of this was that John Arlott, the famous commentator, received a letter from D'Oliveira who, like most South Africans of coloured or mixed background, faced non-access to first-class amenities, lack of opportunity, lack of training et cetera. Arlott, obviously knowing that D'Oliveira had great potential and having a feeling for the discrimination he faced, approached a Lancashire club, and D'Oliveira went on to play for Worcestershire. He accomplished five centuries, 44 test matches and played in county cricket until the age of 46. The Guardian, my weekly edition of the Bible for the last 25 years, commented that:
Anyone who would swallow that—
The decision that he should not be in the team—
would believe the moon was a currant bun.
That was the ridiculousness of the decision by British authorities to not make him available for the original team.
The umpire, Charlie Elliott, was very prescient when D'Oliveira scored 158 runs for England against Australia and said to Dolly:
Oh Christ, you've put the cat among the pigeons now
because he, obviously, perceived that they had to select D'Oliveira if they were doing it on merit. He was Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1967. Interestingly, I note that the people who initiated the House of Commons resolution came from the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, who are very much on the conservative spectrum of British politics. That is the way in which D'Oliveira has become so recognised. I notice that his son said that he was not only very reticent about telling his true age throughout his life but he was also disinclined to ever discuss the situation that he faced in South Africa. Even amongst family he was not really keen to cover these issues.
Along with many other sportsmen in rugby, tennis and cricket, D'Oliveira was part of a process that led to the dismantling of apartheid. Not only Lloyd McDermott but also other Sydney-based players refused to go on that campaign. We know that the New Zealand and Australian tours by the Springboks in that period were widely disrupted. Two games had to be abandoned on the rugby front in New Zealand because of crowd activity. D'Oliveira has been recognised on many fronts since then. He did play a central role in dismantling a racist regime. It was typical of that regime that they did actually discuss at cabinet level the possibility of bribing him, of paying him significant amounts of money to avoid this issue coming to the fore, because they could see that processes like that—the selection of people like D'Oliveira—would eventually cause major headaches for the regime. I commend the previous speakers for this important motion.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:51): Cricket lost one of its finest when Basil Lewis D'Oliveira died, aged 80, on 19 November 2011. Moreover, nations throughout the world which play the great game of cricket felt the loss of a man affectionately nicknamed 'Dolly', who gave so much on the field and, more importantly, made such an impression and impact off the field.
But we should not mourn for D'Oliveira; rather, we should celebrate all he gave, what he achieved and his lasting legacy not just to sport but also to race relations within the community of nations. He will be best remembered for the dramatic and, indeed, noble role he played in helping to defy apartheid in sport. A person of mixed race—in South African terms 'coloured'—yet a gifted cricketer in his native Cape Town, D'Oliveira was denied the opportunity to play for the country of his birth. This was due to the unfair, discriminatory racial segregation of the apartheid regime.
D'Oliveira went to England to become a test player there, and his eventual selection for the 1968-69 England tour to South Africa so offended John Vorster's government that it refused to allow him to play and the tour was cancelled. Subsequently, South Africa was exiled from international cricket until the fall of apartheid in 1994. The determined yet dignified way in which D'Oliveira dealt with the uproar endeared him to the British public and ultimately proved to be a turning point in the South African attitude to segregated matches. It took many years to change, but the D'Oliveira affair played a pivotal part in the start of a gradual easing of official segregation in South African sport. It also significantly hurt the regime's world standing.
D'Oliveira never desired to be the focus of attention or controversy. Whilst he was proud that the role he played brought the injustice of apartheid to wider attention, he was a reserved, quiet individual. All he wanted to do was to play cricket as well as he could and at the highest level. His achievements are testament to his ability. In 44 tests, he scored 2,484 runs, with five centuries and a top score of 158. He was a handy bowler, claiming 47 wickets. I know the member for Banks—and I love the way he described him as a beacon—also quoted Peter Mason, who penned D'Oliveira's obituary in the Guardian:
From an early age, D'Oliveira was the best cricketer in the non-white leagues of South Africa. At 21, he hit seven sixes and one four in an eight ball over, and at 23 scored 225 in an astonishing 75 minutes—out of his team's total of 236. He was a successful medium pace bowler too, taking nine for two in one innings. …
Had he been white, D'Oliveira would probably have played in his teens for South Africa and might well have risen to be acknowledged as one of the greatest cricketers of all time. But while his success in non-white cricket was unmatched, he spent his prime years up to the age of 28 confined to playing on scrubby matting wickets on wasteland. By 1959, disillusioned and disheartened, he had become resigned to his situation. He married his childhood Sweetheart Naomi and channelled his efforts into his job as a machinist at a printing firm.
But class always shines through and eventually he made his first-class debut at 30 years of age. The first non-white South African to play county cricket, D'Oliveira's remarkable middle order batting and economical bowling made an immediate impact. He scored a century on his county championship debut in 1964 and helped Worcestershire to win the competition that year. The rest, as they say, is history.
The test series between South Africa and England is now known as the Basil D'Oliveira Trophy—how appropriate. D'Oliveira is survived by Naomi and their two sons, Damian, who also played for Worcestershire, and Shaun. As Peter Mason penned:
"Dolly" was a very popular figure in his adopted home: he had also carried the hopes of so many of his black South African countrymen and – through grit, determination and huge skill – triumphed on their behalf as well as his own.
May he rest in peace.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:55): I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion and commend the member for Banks for bringing it before the House. Our journey through history has often been marked by single events which have caused or triggered a change in direction. The story of Basil D'Oliveira is one such event. His story not only precipitated events in South Africa but across much of the Western world. Basil D'Oliveira was a brilliant South African born cricketer. In the late 1950s his brilliance was noticed by the cricket community in Cape Town. His problem was that he was a black man. At the time, being a coloured person in South Africa meant that you were discriminated against, segregated and not allowed to represent your country. Discrimination was firmly entrenched in South African society through the apartheid system enforced through the National Party regime.
Interestingly, it was an era when discrimination against black people was clearly evident in many other parts of the world, including here in Australia. But the 1960s was also a time of great social change and significant historical events, particularly on the issue of racial discrimination. In Australia the constitutional change to recognise Aborigines is a case in point. Simultaneously in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr came to prominence for his fight against racial discrimination before he was assassinated in 1968. In 1967 the classic film Guess who's coming to dinner,featuring Sidney Poitier, Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, portrayed a romance between a black man and a white woman and very clearly reflected community attitudes of the time in the United States, where marriage between black and white people in many parts of the country was frowned upon. South Africa's refusal to select Basil D'Oliveira to the national cricket team provoked a chain of events that ultimately resulted in an international sporting ban on South Africa that lasted for 22 years. A single, previously unknown black South African man with extraordinary cricket skills prompted international condemnation against South Africa and highlighted the racial discrimination in that country.
Basil D'Oliveira was not the only black South African sportsman of that era to be a victim of South Africa's apartheid policy. Precious McKenzie was an outstanding South African weightlifter. He too migrated to the UK in 1964 after he was not selected for the 1960 Rome Olympics because of apartheid policies. The South African government offered to select him in 1964 provided he was segregated from the white members of the team. Precious refused. Precious McKenzie went on to win several gold medals, although regrettably not for his country of birth, in the World Powerlifting Championships and the Commonwealth Games, competing first for England and later for New Zealand, where he resettled and still resides. In 2006, in recognition of his heritage, he was inducted into the South African sports hall of fame. Precious was an outstanding athlete and a gentleman. I have the pleasure of knowing him personally and the displeasure of having competed against him.
In Basil D'Oliveira's era cricket was the sport of gentlemen and in South Africa of upper class white people. Human existence has always been tribal. Our differences can divide us and our commonalities unite us, but sport is a powerful unifier that can overcome cultural and racial differences. Nelson Mandela understood that and cleverly used sport to unite the people of his country. Those who say that sport and politics should not be mixed should think again. Basil D'Oliveira was an extraordinary, internationally recognised cricket player, and his international colleagues stood by him. In doing so, they drew attention to not only his cricketing ability but, more importantly, the apartheid regime in South Africa. Basil's cricketing greatness was ultimately recognised by South Africa. His more important place in history, however, was his role in bringing an end to apartheid. He gave hope and inspiration to the oppressed. He helped turn the tide against racial discrimination across the world. We may never have seen the best of Basil D'Oliveira but his personal and public achievements were remarkable. His life marked a turning point in history.
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (13:00): I thank the member for Banks for bringing this motion before the parliament. Some might wonder why you would talk about a sportsperson, but Basil D'Oliveira actually changed the world and had a great effect, through sport and through his political involvement, in what happened in South Africa. So this is a very important motion to commemorate him in this parliament.
For Basil D'Oliveira, affectionately known by his friends as Dolly, his introduction as the first non-white South African in English county cricket was itself a breakthrough. Through his role in having South Africa banned from international sport, and up until his recent death due to Parkinson's disease, he led an extraordinary life and was humble from start to finish. He was a great cricketer whose career could have been greater were it not curtailed by the oppressive apartheid regime in South Africa. Beyond cricket, in unintentional ways he raised awareness of the oppressive apartheid regime, which led to South Africa's international ban from sport.
Basil D'Oliveira never revealed his date of birth. Had he done so, he would not have been selected to play cricket in the UK for Middleton, Worcestershire or England. Had he let it be known that he was born earlier than the date of 1931 that he officially gave, he would not have got his league cricket start at the age of 32 or 33. He did not qualify for Worcestershire until 34 or, so he was still a bit of a mystery, and did not play for the England team until he was 38 or maybe 39. Of course, he played until he was 45. These days people would say that is a bit old. Ricky Ponting is 37 and people say he is getting a bit too old. This shows that age does not always weary them.
You could argue that Basil D'Oliveira's first-class batting average of 39.97 and his test batting average of 40.06 would have been considerably higher had he been fairly granted the opportunity to play representative cricket at the highest class when he was an up-and-coming player in South Africa. I remember watching cricket on TV with my mother when I was a youngster when Australia was fighting back in the last innings with a chance to win the match against England. I think it was a very stubborn fifth-wicket partnership and we were starting to get on top. The commentators on TV were saying England should bring on one of the specialist bowlers, but the cunning Ray Illingworth actually brought on Basil D'Oliveira. I remember the commentator saying that was a big mistake. Well, before long Basil D'Oliveira had broken that partnership, got another couple of wickets and won the match for England as a humble medium-fast bowler. So I think Ray Illingworth knew a lot more than the commentators did.
Basil D'Oliveira had the misfortune of being born a non-white in apartheid South Africa and grew up in the discriminative world that apartheid South Africa imposed. D'Oliveira got a start when he developed his trademark back-foot stroke play with a short backlift to devastating effect. He was prolific in those early formative years and he scored 80 centuries on uneven matting pitches before emigrating to England for an opportunity. I have played on a lot of matting pitches but I certainly did not have that class or score 80 centuries like he did. The closest to official cricket that Basil D'Oliveira got was sitting in the coloured stand at Cape Town. That was a crying shame for South African cricket at the time but I think they have now recognised their mistake. It is good to see that people realise he has done a lot of good for cricket in South Africa, in England and internationally. Despite pressures from above, when he was not initially selected for the South African tour, he finally got his chance, and that is what really caused the whole problem for South African cricket, leading to a ban for many years to come. But it was the right decision to make.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ) (13:05): I take this opportunity to associate myself with the contributions made by all honourable members. They have been a great tribute to a great citizen. I applaud the member for Banks for bringing this important motion before the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Proceedings suspended from 13:06 to 16:00
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:00): On behalf of the opposition it is my pleasure to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill, and I indicate at the outset that the coalition will be supporting this legislation. Like all tax law amendment bills it deals with a number of substantive taxation issues, which I am going to run through fairly briefly. Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, you can probably tell I am losing my voice, albeit slowly, but I hope it lasts the rest of the week. I have picked up whatever it is my three-year-old son, Angus, has. I think you would agree it would be less than efficient for me to lose my voice on something we all agree on at the start of a sitting week.
This bill deals with some changes to superannuation, some changes to capital gains tax and some changes to GST. It adds to the deductible gift recipient list and, finally, as is nearly always the case, it corrects some unintended errors and makes some tidying up provisions within the tax law generally. Very briefly, as we know this legislation was introduced late last year on 23 November by the then Assistant Treasurer, Mr Shorten. He outlined in some detail in the second reading speech the changes and the reasons for those changes with respect to superannuation.
Schedule 1 will allow certain superannuation fund members with lost super to more easily consolidate their funds through the use of an electronic portability form. It is outlined both in the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum how that will operate, and we regard this as a sensible initiative. Schedule 2 in three parts deals with capital gains tax. The essence of those changes is to allow entities in a restructure to use share-of-interest sale facilities without failing a requirement of certain capital gains tax rollovers. Also, as is pointed out, it provides capital gains tax demerger relief and there is also a provision to expand capital gains tax rollover to entities changing their incorporation.
With respect to the goods and services tax, the bill outlines two things with respect to GST. It implements some aspects of the Treasury review of the GST of financial supply provisions. It is pointed out that some of the changes can be dealt with in this bill and some can be dealt with by way of regulation. I understand that my friend and colleague the member for Blair, who follows these tax law amendment bills, I am sure, will be across this issue in some detail. Also in a separate section the bill clarifies the GST treatment of new residential premises. Without going into all the details it is another case where, I think, the member for Blair will confirm legislation is required to confirm the original intent of the GST legislation, in this case, following a court decision.
Finally, schedule 5 adds the Rhodes Trust to the deductible gift recipient list. Of course the Rhodes Trust raises funds to augment the existing Rhodes Scholarship program at Oxford. I also noticed from the then Assistant Treasurer's second reading speech that there is also a name change to another organisation. As I said at the start, schedule 6 deals with some miscellaneous amendments to correct some unintended errors with some technical corrections. On behalf of the opposition I commend the bill to House. As I said at the outset, we will be supporting this bill through both houses.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:05): I speak in support of this TLAB legislation, the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011. This bill, like all bills that amend the tax laws in an omnibus way, does it by way of schedule. I want to focus particularly on schedule 1, which is the portability of superannuation and the implications there. By way of an example, I will describe my own electorate and how changes being made to superannuation will have an impact there.
Firstly, I will briefly go through the other aspects of the bill. Schedule 2 is part of the 2010-11 budget, where we announced that we were amending the capital gains tax provisions to make it easier for businesses to restructure. There are a number of provisions here. This amendment talks about certain business structures and broadening access to CGT rollovers. This is consistent with our commitment to streamline business to make it more flexible so that it can operate in a way that is not governed by regulation and the tax laws do not impinge in an adverse way. It extends the CGT rollover for the conversion of a body to an incorporated company—and that often happens. It is often the case that businesses change the way they are structured. That is a sensible provision. It broadens the range of CGT rollovers where entities can use a share or interest sale facility for foreign residents in a restructure and allows the CGT demerger relief for demerger groups that include corporations sole or complying superannuation entities which cannot access the relief. It is a sensible arrangement and really is good public policy.
Schedule 3 provides for the CGT financial supply provisions. It increases the first limb of the financial acquisition threshold from $50,000 to $150,000. The purpose of that is to follow recommendations that were made in the Treasury's review of the CGT financial supply provisions to make sure that we can take businesses out of the system. It means that we are excluding financial suppliers consisting of borrowings made through the provisions of a deposit account by Australian authorised deposit-taking institutions from the current concession for borrowings; and allows the taxpayer who accounts on a cash basis to treat an acquisition made under a hire purchase agreement as though they did an account on a cash basis.
The next provision I want to deal with is the CGT treatment for new residential purposes. This corrects an error made, I think in a court, in the case Commissioner of Taxation v Gloxinia Investments. This decision found that a sale of certain residential premises to owner-occupier investors was actually an input tax—which is a strange way of thinking about it—rather than taxable. I had a bit of a look at that. I do not profess to be an expert on tax, but I thought it was a very strange decision. The schedule amends what we call the GST act—or, to use its full title, A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999—providing that a wholesale supply of residential premises is disregarded in certain circumstances for the purposes of determining whether a subsequent supply of a premise is the supply of new residential premise and thus taxable. There are additional changes that are made, but I will not go through them now.
The listing of deductible gift recipient status is also covered. A number of people on both sides of the political aisle have had the benefit of Rhodes scholarships. I understand the Leader of the Opposition was one. My good friend—and I was his campaign director—former Queensland Treasurer the Hon. David Hamill was also a Rhodes scholar. So we are listing here the Rhodes Trust in Australia to allow Australians who donate to the appeal to claim a deduction for the donation. There are some other miscellaneous changes, which I will not go into.
Schedule 1 is what I really want to focus on, because it is part of the package of superannuation that will make a difference, particularly in my electorate. As we know, a lot of people lose their super. By that, I do not mean that they put it away under the bed and cannot find it; they actually lose their super because they chop and change the businesses they work for. Then they forget they have it or they do not know about it and it is not pressing on their minds. The Australian Taxation Office runs a system that makes it easier and simpler for superannuation members and retirement savings account holders to consolidate their benefits. This scheme will introduce an electronic portability form that will make it easier for account holders and fund members to report funds as lost.
Just to show how significant lost superannuation is, at 30 June 2010 there were about 5.8 million lost superannuation accounts in Australia, with an accumulated balance of $18.8 billion. The then Assistant Treasurer in his second reading speech on this bill, on 23 November 2011, made the point that by 30 June 2011—a year later—that balance had increased to $20.2 billion. We just cannot keep going like that; that is money that belongs to Australians and that will help them in their retirement.
In my electorate alone, which covers the majority of Ipswich and the Somerset region, there is about $80 million waiting to be found by residents. That is according to the Australian Taxation Office. There are about 21,500 accounts that are, effectively, lost. I urge all residents in my electorate to use the SuperSeeker hotline during business hours—132 865—or go to the ATO superannuation website, www.ato.gov.au/super, because this is money that can be used. We are talking about lots of money. The average amount of lost super is about $3,500, invested over a 20-year period that would equate to about $12,500 that could be spent in retirement. That is a lot of money that could go towards a holiday after many years of work; that could go towards the purchase of a new car that someone might need in their retirement—it might be the last good car they actually buy; or that might be extra money spent for grandkids. It is a lot of money. So helping people find their lost superannuation is an important thing.
We on this side are very committed to making sure that people live in dignity and have financial security in retirement. That is why we are increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr NEUMANN: I notice that those opposite have, of course, not supported that. That is a sad thing, because we are talking about a 30-year-old person having $108,000 more in superannuation when they retire. Just for the benefit of the member for Moncrieff, who is in the chamber, 43,500 people in my electorate will benefit from the increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine percent to 12 percent. I daresay that a similar number of people in his electorate will benefit. It is tragic that he did not support that legislation.
In March 2011, there was $1.36 trillion invested in superannuation. The market fluctuates, we know, but over the long term superannuation has delivered a very healthy return for investors and for Australians. That is a creation of a federal Labor government, because it is only we on this side of the chamber who are committed to doing that.
Increasing compulsory superannuation will benefit the retirement savings of all Australians. We think that is a particularly important thing, just as we think about the reforms associated with that legislation, like benefiting the 10,700 small businesses in my electorate that will benefit from the cut in the company tax rate. So there are a lot of important things that we are doing: superannuation, in terms of low-income earners—23,600 residents in Blair will get extra superannuation contributions. This government is adding to the superannuation nest eggs of people in my community as well as across the country. Schedule 1 of this legislation is about making sure that the people of Blair, and the people of Australia, get the benefit of the portability of superannuation, making sure they do not lose their superannuation, making sure they live their retirement with dignity and respect.
We are committed, on this side of the chamber, to high-skilled, good wages. And we are committed on this side of the chamber to small business. We are committed by reducing the company tax rate. We are committed by investing in infrastructure, in skills and in training. We have done that; those opposite have not.
It is almost a road to Damascus conversion experience from those opposite—actually now supporting good pieces of legislation, reforming the tax system and reforming superannuation. And if, like Saint Paul on the road to Damascus, this is when they have seen the light, we are very pleased and we support the legislation.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (16:15): I am pleased to rise in particular to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011—and follow the member for Blair, who I see racing from the chamber now! Can I just say, it was entertaining, to say the least, to hear the member for Blair provide as part of his contribution on this debate some attempt to draw a linkage between the so-called vision of this Labor government and what it means for the retirement incomes of Australia's working people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, at first blush, if you only listen to the member for Blair's contribution in isolation, you might think he had a point to make. You might actually think that Labor was concerned, through an increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent, in providing for retirement of Australians into the future. The problem is, though, that this government's exceptionally poor track record does not match the rhetoric. The problem is that the bill before the House certainly contains beneficial initiatives—and that is why the coalition is supporting this bill—but the simple reality is that the rhetoric we heard from the member for Blair is not matched by action. Whilst it is crucial that there are opportunities for people to find and recover lost superannuation—and, to the extent that schedule 1 of the bill deals with that, that is beneficial; and that is the reason why, once again, the coalition is supporting government policy that is good government policy. Contrary to frequent assertions by Labor members that this is a coalition that only ever says no, the truth is that that not the case, and that this is just another example of the way in which that coalition supports. The reason why we are accused of saying no too frequently is simply that this is a government that bowls up such bad policy on such a continuing and frequent basis. But I am pleased to say, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that on this occasion we can all be united in our love for the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011.
But I will deal specifically with the issue of providing for retirement. The member for Blair went to some length in crowing about the Labor Party's track record. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when you actually consider the key drivers of the manner in which a person is able to live their retirement in a comfortable way, there are two factors at play. One is of course the accumulation of wealth over time, in a lump sum form, that sits in a superannuation fund. There is no doubt about that: it is a crucial factor. But, just as importantly, the cost of living, and the extent to which that impacts on the lump sum necessary at the commencement of someone's retirement, is equally of value. And it has been this Labor Party that has driven up the cost of living at a level that, frankly, is almost unprecedented.
It has been the policies of this government that have driven up the expenses that Australians have to pay in terms of just their ordinary lifestyles and going about paying for those ordinary things that we all consume, be it groceries, be it utilities, be it medical insurance. On each of these factors this is a government that has betrayed the confidence of Australia's so-called 'working families', as the Labor Party commonly refers to them, but more broadly than that, the community as a whole. We know that the price of utilities, to give but one example, has risen in excess of 10 per cent in the past 12 to 18 months. And it is further forecast, as of 1 July under the carbon tax, to go up an additional 10 per cent. The reason that is crucial—bringing it back to the subject matter of the debate—is that those expenses go to the core of how much someone must provision for their retirement. And the faster the cost of living increases, the more you need to provide for your retirement. That is just an inescapable reality, and the reason why this government is so big on rhetoric but so poor when it comes to follow-through. The rest of this bill is fairly pedestrian. Part 1 of schedule 2 deals with capital gains tax in business restructures and part 2 of schedule 2 deals with capital gains tax demerger relief. Part 3 of schedule 2 deals with restructures in terms of their impact on capital gains tax for Indigenous corporations. Schedule 3 deals with GST financial supply provisions. That perhaps has some impact on a number of my constituents on the Gold Coast. Under schedule 3 the first limb of the financial acquisition threshold will increase from $50,000 to $150,000, effectively increasing the dollar value of input tax credits available for acquisitions related to the making of financial supplies—a good initiative and one that the coalition supports. That is the reason we are supporting this bill.
Schedule 4, which deals with GST treatment of new residential premises, also has an impact in some respects on a number of operations that are undertaken in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. It effectively seeks to ensure that sales or long-term leases of new residential premises by a registered entity are taxable supplies subject to the GST at the time of sale and that sales or long-term leases of residential premises other than new residential premises are input taxed supplies and therefore not subject to the GST at the time or sale under the goods and services tax legislation. Effectively this serves to clarify the intent of the law after the recent Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Gloxinia Investments (Trustee), in which it was found that the sale of new residential premises using a developmental lease arrangement should be treated as input taxed—that is, not be subject to the GST. These outcomes are contrary to the general policy intent in relation to the taxation of property under the GST act. That is why the changes are provided for in this legislation.
The member for Blair and others have spoken about the Rhodes Trust being added to the deductible gift recipient list. We know that DGR status, as it is commonly referred to, is an important tool that helps to drive donations in some of these charitable trusts. It is a way to ensure the gift becomes a tax deductible gift. For that reason the application of DGR status to the Rhodes Trust is obviously going to be beneficial, given it is great enabler for many young Australians to travel and study at Oxford University. Schedule 6 deals with a grab bag of various amendments to tax laws.
I am pleased to associate myself with the bill. It is a bill that will clarify a number of matters in relation to taxation. At the outset I addressed very directly some of the spurious assertions that were made by the member for Blair and corrected the record with respect to the fact that there is another side to that coin about providing for Australians' retirement incomes, and that is to control the cost of living.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:23): I am looking forward to speaking on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No.9) Bill 2011. I have said in this place before that I quite like tax laws amendment bills. Some of my constituents have now found me out and approached me in the street and questioned my character over that, but I do admit it. Quite often in these bills that deal with so many aspects of other areas of policy in some ways you find the character of a government—you find the small details that put in place aspects of broader policy and you are reminded of policies that were implemented a year before that require a change to tax law. In this case, you find very real indications of the government's commitment to retirement income, to simplifying things for business and to clarifying and simplifying the law across a range of areas.
Before I get to the fun bit, which is the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No.9) Bill 2011, I do have to respond to the member for Moncrieff's opening remarks. I find it quite extraordinary that anybody would question the Labor government's commitment to retirement incomes. After all, it was Labor that fought so hard through those very difficult reform years back in the eighties and nineties to make super available to the general population and then to increase it to nine per cent. That was not a simple reform. It was perhaps one of the hardest reforms we have seen a government undertake for many years. It is the Labor government now that is committed to increasing super contributions to 12 per cent. I note the remarks by the member for Moncrieff about the cost of living. To say that working with an inflation rate in the band recommended by the Reserve Bank is the most outrageous increase in the cost of living in human memory, or he said something similar, is quite an extraordinary statement. Perhaps he should have a closer look at the real economic figures and pay a little less attention to his fantasy life.
There is a third element to retirement incomes and that, of course, is jobs. Perhaps it is the most important one because, without a job, you do not have much of a chance of accumulating retirement income at all. We have seen an opposition that has not supported this government's very strong commitment to retaining jobs and growing jobs. Through the global economic crisis, when this government put forward a stimulus package specifically designed to ensure that as many Australians as possible kept their jobs while the rest of the world were shedding theirs, we did not see support from the opposition. We have not seen support from the opposition for programs that strengthen the car industry in Australia, an incredibly important area of the Australian economy that not just keeps many tens of thousands of people employed but provides the skill base that flows through other manufacturing sectors. Similarly we have not seen support from the opposition for the aluminium industry, an extremely important part of our economy. So I would suggest to the member for Moncrieff that perhaps he could rethink some of his comments. I doubt that he will. I think that, again, the fantasy world he lives in is a far more interesting one for members of the opposition than reality. It was an unfortunate and rather misleading contribution.
Now back to the fun bit: the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011, which is so interesting that they even have the date in it twice. They always do and I cannot quite figure that one out, but I am sure the guys from Treasury will one day explain to me why all the tax laws have the date twice. There are six schedules in this bill. Schedule 1 is about portability of superannuation. We heard one of the earlier speakers talk at length about this. It is a particularly interesting area. At the moment, we all know that there are many Australians who have lost touch with their superannuation or their superannuation has lost touch with them—one way or the other. In other words, there is money out there that belongs to them but is, essentially, out of their grasp. The government has already created some easier pathways for people to find their super through the lost super website. In my electorate we have already been out with mobile offices all over the electorate, encouraging people to come in and logon and try to find their lost super. If you ever have tried to consolidate your superannuation, if you are a normal person in the street who does not follow these things closely, it becomes quite a complicated process.
Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997—two fine bills—to enable certain superannuation fund members to electronically request the consolidation of their superannuation benefits through the ATO. It is referred to as the electronic portability form. Essentially it means that it will be much easier, through a phone call to the ATO and then logging on to an ATO website, to have their lost superannuation funds consolidated through the ATO.
It is quite a clever little device. It makes it much simpler and easier for lost superannuation fund members to consolidate their benefits. Essentially, that helps people to reduce the fees they pay on multiple accounts and to maximise their retirement benefits. Again, this is a seemingly quite simple improvement but it is one that reflects a longstanding commitment of this government to the development of the retirement incomes of everyday Australians. This measure was supported by both the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.
Schedule 2 makes improvement to the capital gains tax law to make it easier for businesses to restructure. Under current law, taxpayers can obtain the capital gains tax rollover for a capital gain or loss that arises from their interest in a company or a 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 and schedule 2.2 of the bill makes the situation more consistent, making the rollover available for both of those types of bodies. It removes barriers to business restructures of a certain type by broadening access to various CGT rollovers. The changes are absolutely consistent with the government's long-term objective of promoting flexibility for business. Once again, this is a small change that reflects an attitude in a broad policy area that this government has been working on now for nearly four years.
Schedule 3 concerns the GST financial supply provisions. It reduces compliance costs for small businesses by increasing the financial acquisitions threshold from $50,000 to $150,000. If a small business makes a financial acquisition below this amount it falls outside the financial supply regime and can claim input tax credits for its financial supplies. Increasing the threshold takes more small businesses outside of the financial supply regime. Many small businesses in my area will think that a very fine thing. The bill implements three of the seven recommendations agreed to by the government arising out of the Treasury's review of the GST financial supply provisions.
Something interesting that this bill does is amend the GST treatment of hire purchase, again something that is going to benefit a large number of small businesses in my electorate and around the country. There are two current credit arrangements, hire purchase and chattel mortgage. They have very similar credit arrangements. But they have very important differences which carry through to their tax treatment. In both cases, essentially the purchaser obtains the use of the asset upfront in return for a series of payments made in instalments. In hire purchase, ownership does not transfer until the final payment. In chattel mortgage, ownership transfers upfront.
All else being equal, hire purchase is usually preferred over chattel mortgage. Chattel mortgage has an increased risk for the lender because the title has already changed hands and if there is a default repossession is difficult and may not be possible. Hire purchase is far less costly to implement in terms of legal fees and stamp duties. You would normally expect to see, particularly in the small business area, hire purchase being used to a far greater extent than chattel mortgage. That is not the case in Australia since the introduction of the GST. In fact, since the GST was introduced chattel mortgage has largely replaced the use of hire purchase in small businesses, even though chattel mortgage is more expensive, more complex and involves greater risk for the finance company.
The reason for that is because the GST operates differently for the two systems, particularly if the small business runs its accounts on a cash basis. Small businesses with an annual GST turnover of less than $2 million can account for GST on a cash basis, whereas larger business must account on an accrual basis. Cash accounting is simpler and reduces compliance costs, which is why small businesses like it. But the tax effect is that the larger firms account for their GST liability and input tax credits for hire purchase agreements upfront whereas small businesses that account for GST with cash account for it when each payment is made.
Under this amendment, the treatment of GST for small businesses that account on a cash basis becomes the same as that for larger companies. That will result in a significant cash flow benefit for small businesses compared to the current situation. Again, that is something that appears to be quite a small change but it will reduce the compliance costs, the administrative burden and the risk for many businesses in Australia—quite a nice little change.
Schedule 4 involves the GST treatment of new residential premises. The amendments will essentially reverse the effect of the court case involving 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 reaffirms the policy intent that newly constructed homes should be subject to GST and will also protect the revenue that funds government services that assist the whole of the community. The measure will ensure that GST is payable on the full value added to newly constructed residential premises by developers and builders. This is achieved by ensuring that GST is applied to the retail sale of new residential premises to homeowners and investors, as well as the wholesale supply of the premises to the developer or builder. Schedule 5 I am only going to speak about very briefly. It involves tax deductible recipients. Under the current law, taxpayers can claim an income tax deduction for certain gifts to organisations with deductible gift recipient status. This amendment lists donations to the Rhodes Trust Australia appeal to be claimed as a tax deduction. This is a fairly routine amendment, unless you happen to be the Rhodes Trust Australia or you happen to want to donate to them. It is a very good outcome for the Rhodes Trust.
There are a number of miscellaneous amendments in schedule 6 that I will not go into. They are mainly quite administrative—too administrative even for a person who loves tax or amendments. Again, it is a rather nice little collection of amendments that reduce complexity for small business, clarify tax law and have benefits for cash-flow management for small business. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:36): Before I address the issues before us I will pick up on a couple of the issues raised by my good friend the member for Parramatta. The member for Parramatta spoke briefly about cost-of-living pressures. I am on record as saying that my electorate of Wright is one of the weathervanes of the nation. I have no linkages into the resources sector whatsoever, so my hypothesis is that it is only a matter of time before the pain we feel at the moment flows through to the rest of the market. I reassure my colleagues that the cost-of-living pressures that are out there at the moment are absolutely horrendous, and for this government to be dismissive of the idea that those pressures exist in my electorate is uncalled for.
The member for Parramatta went on to criticise the coalition for not giving support to the car industry or the aluminium sector. Today I had the opportunity to read a couple of documents. I was trying to get my head around this whole car industry manufacturing process. I read some comments from a Holden executive. He had some scathing comments, saying that up to a third of his workforce struggled to roll up to work, for one reason or another. He said his ability to respond to that was hampered by union intervention. He went on to speak about the lack of efficiency in the car industry. That is one argument, but I will put that aside for a moment. I do acknowledge the impact of the increase in the Australian dollar on the industry. That has an impact on anyone who is trying to export products out of this country.
We have a car manufacturing industry which is non-productive, so the government is throwing some subsidies at it to try and get them over the line. In addition, the government is then going to put its hand in its other pocket for the car industry—between 2012 and 2020, carbon credit payments to the car industry alone will be in the vicinity of $450 million. Notwithstanding that, in 2012, in the year that the carbon tax is introduced, for Alcoa, which has two sites, that payment will be $40 million, and it will increase exponentially as the carbon price of $23 per tonne increases. I thought I would put that on the table. I would be quite happy to take it up with the member for Parramatta at a later stage. It just bewilders me when we talk about supporting an industry on the one hand and then the government puts its hand into the pocket of the same organisation and calls it support.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011 makes the following changes to the taxation laws. It allows certain superannuation fund members to electronically request consolidation of their super funds through the Australian Taxation Office. It allows entities in a restructure to use shares or interest sales facilities without failing a requirement of certain capital gains tax rollovers. It provides capital gains tax demerger relief. It expands capital gains tax rollovers to entities changing their incorporation. It implements aspects of the Treasury's review of the GST financial supply provision. Additionally, it clarifies the GST treatment of new residential premises, adds the Rhodes Trust to the deductible gift recipients list and, finally, makes other minor and technical changes.
In Schedule 1 it allows certain superannuation fund members with lost super to more easily consolidate their funds through the use of one or more electronic portable forms. The form is submitted electronically at the ATO, which can then verify the status of lost money and the eligibility of the nominated receiving account. The coalition believes this to be a sensible initiative to streamline the process of re-uniting lost super funds with their owners. There would not be too many people in this room who, before either entering politics or working in the government, did not have some other forms of employment. In particular, our youth below the age of 25 change their jobs often. It used to be that we had five major career changes in our life. People below the age of 25 are already up to their third career change. They are not staying in the workforce as long as our fathers did. As a result this measure makes it easier for those people who have chopped and changed jobs to get access to their superannuation.
While we are on the issue of superannuation: the member for Blair spoke about the increase of super contributions from nine to 12 per cent. The government take the position that this is a wonderful initiative that they are putting in place. When I speak to my businesses they are horrified because they cannot see where the relief from the federal government is coming from to assist them with the increase in super from nine to 12 per cent. Yes, there is a one per cent reduction in their company tax rate from 30 to 29 per cent but, even when questioned in estimates, the Real Estate Institute of Australia indicated that the three per cent increase in superannuation contribution by the businessperson, by the small mum and dad, was not going to be covered by the one per cent. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot call this a Labor initiative and say that you are out there helping business when really, at face value, you are again putting your hands into the pockets of businesspeople, mums and dads, who are trying to employ people and you are asking them to pay for the increased contribution.
Part 2 of the schedule is about the share sales facilities. These are entities used in dealing with foreign interests during the sale or restructuring of a company. The foreign interest holds ownership and transfers to the share sales facility, which deals with the holdings during the sale or the restructure and then returns the cash or the new assets for the foreign interest holder. The share sales facility is primarily used to avoid complex foreign tax laws and unintended taxation consequences in restructuring companies. The existing owners are given significant capital gains rollover relief where a structure results in those owners holding substantially the same interest in the new entity. However, where there is a sale facility that is required to be used, the CGT rollover is not available to the foreign interest holders because the actual sale or the restructure was completed by the facility rather than by the foreign interest holder. This has acted as an impediment to restructuring and what would otherwise have been of benefit to the company and its shareholders. The change in this bill will allow foreign interest holders, who are otherwise eligible for capital gains rollover, to relief. With the restructure of the company, where the share sale facility has been used to effect the actual restructure, the law will treat the share sale facility to track the actual ownership before and after the restructure.
Under the capital gains tax demerger relief in schedule 2, part II, taxpayers can choose to obtain a capital gains tax rollover for a capital gain or capital loss that arises in their interest as a company or trust, because of the demerger of an entity from the group of companies. This is not a bad one. Basically, when you speak about a merger, you have two entities that may have separate assets but for argument's sake may have a combined balance sheet. When those companies decide to demerger it allows ease for the capturing of the capital gain. It is not susceptible at that point. The main part of the business that is retaining the assets does not have a huge bill as part of their operational cost. That one does make sense.
Schedule 2, part III, 'Capital gains tax business restructures', will allow the Indigenous bodies to incorporate under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 without immediate capital gains tax consequences for the body members. As part of the Economics Committee we last year toddled up to the north of Queensland and caught up with a number of Aboriginal communities. It is hard to get them all in the one spot at the one time. They have different asset groups. This bill did not come as a result of that trip but I can assure you that this part of the legislation will assist those communities in trying to be more of a united front with reference to how they present themselves as a community. There is resistance in the north for that to happen at this point in time. There are some significant assets held by different communities and under the current taxation rulings transferring assets from one body to another does include some capital gain. This gives the capacity to merge those assets without any unintended consequences.
Schedule 3, the GST financial supply provision, increases the first limb of the financial acquisition threshold from $50,000 to $150,000. This increases the dollar value of the tax input credits available for acquisitions related to the making of financial supplies. The schedule includes financial supplies consisting of borrowings that are made through a provision of the deposit account from an ADI and the current concession for borrowing. The schedule allows taxpayers who account on a cash basis to claim input tax credits for acquisitions made under a hire purchase agreement upfront. This removes the distortion that currently exists between hire purchase and other forms of financing. Predominantly it is just the difference between a chattel mortgage and an HP. One of them provides you with access to draw back down after your first payment—your GST credit. Small businesses often use that as cash flow to pump back through the business. It is a bit of a false economy because you are virtually still financing your business on borrowed coin, and there is a cost associated with it. I assumed they looked at this because of title or the ownership of a lease—whether it be a truck or any type of unit such as that. If title is with the business holder then there is the capacity for depreciation to be claimed back immediately. If it is with HP or a lease, title remains with the financier and those incentives are not available.
Schedule 4, the GST treatment of new residential premises, seeks to ensure that the sales of long-term leases of new residential premises by a registered entity are a taxable supply, subject to the GST at the time of sale. For that sale—or long-term lease for residential premises, other than new residential premises—input tax applies and it is therefore not subject to GST at the time of the sale under the goods and services tax. The changes clarify the intent of the law after the full Federal Court's decision in Commissioner of Taxation versus Gloxinia Investments (Trustee), which found that the sale of the new residential premises using a development lease arrangement should be treated as input tax. This is not subject to GST. These outcomes are contrary to the general policy intent in relation to the taxation of property under the GST Act.
Schedule 5 speaks about the adding of the Rhodes Trust to the list of deductible gift recipients. The Rhodes Trust raises funds to augment the existing Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford. All monies are used to provide scholarships to Australians to study at Oxford University. The member for Parramatta also said that basically any donation that is given to that trust becomes tax deductable under the bill, and that is a good thing. Schedule 6 is just a rats and mice one—miscellaneous amendments to the tax laws.
The bill makes technical corrections and other minor and miscellaneous amendments to the taxation laws. The coalition sees no serious issues with this legislation and does not intend to oppose it. I believe the provisions of the bill are to be applied as of 1 July 2012, and I am pleased to associate myself with the bill.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:51): It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011. I am reliably informed by the office of the Assistant Treasurer that I now hold the record amongst government backbenchers for speeches on TLABs, a record that I suspect only I in this place would be proud to hold.
The bill before the House is non-controversial. As previous members have noted, it contains six schedules enabling superannuation fund members to request the consolidation of their benefits; amending CGT provisions to make it easier for businesses to restructure; implementing a number of the recommendations out of Treasury's review of the GST financial supply provisions; ensuring that sales or long-term leases of new residential premises are taxable supplies and that sales or long-term leases of existing residential premises are input tax supplies; adding the Rhodes Trust to the tax act; and making a number of what the previous speaker described as 'rats and mice' amendments.
Despite this, the coalition referred the bill to the House of Representatives Economics Committee. It was our not unpleasant duty to inquire into the bill—an inquiry which ultimately produced a report supported by coalition and Labor members. But it did raise in my mind the question as to why the coalition thought it was worth the House Economics Committee spending time on this rather than, for example, conducting inquiries into other questions such as the strong status of the Australian economy relative to other nations, boosting innovation in Australia and the importance of good economic management over fear mongering.
I would like to place on record the coalition's somewhat odd behaviour now when it comes to referring legislation to the House Economics Committee. As the chair, the member for Parramatta, told the main chamber earlier today, the House has discharged a reference of the appropriations bills—a particularly bizarre reference given that one would think that a government needs to appropriate money to conduct its business. It was in fact difficult for us to see how you would even begin to conduct an inquiry into the appropriations bills—but that was what those opposite wanted us to do. Naturally, the House Economics Committee have refused that reference. It is again just an indication of the general disarray of those opposite when it comes to economic management.
Over the weekend Laurie Oakes wrote in his column that the reason that there have been so many estimates as to how large the opposition's budget black hole is is that the member for North Sydney does not trust his colleagues. So, in order to work out which of them is leaking, he gave each of them verbally a different number for the size of the opposition's black hole—a cunning trick. He laid carefully a trap for his colleagues to fall into and then waited to see which number would emerge in the public domain. A number did very clearly emerge in the public domain. The opposition finance spokesperson came straight out and said, 'The number is $70 billion.' It explains something many of us have been wondering about, which was why the member for Goldstein was so confident about his $70 billion estimate and why the member for North Sydney was saying, 'It could be in a range; it could be $50 billion, $60 billion of $70 billion.' That is because the member for Goldstein had a precise figure which he was given not realising the trap he was about to fall into.
While those opposite are busy laying traps for their colleagues to fall into, we on this side of the House are focused on good economic management. We have a resilient economy with three-quarters of a million jobs created since Labor came to office. We are putting in place record investments in roads, doubling the road budget. We are increasing the rail budget tenfold and investing more in urban public transport than every federal government since Federation. At the same time we are putting in place a price on carbon pollution—an essential economic reform if we are to modernise our economy and create the green jobs of the future.
The choice is not between a carbon price and no carbon price. All those who look at the problem seriously know that the choice is between a carbon price now and a carbon price later, which will be more costly because the changes will be more gut-wrenching. Those opposite are in disarray when it comes to returning the budget to surplus and they are in disarray on just about every fundamental economic question one can point to. Former Liberal boss John Hewson has said the opposition leader is 'one of the most negative people I know' on economic and political issues.
Those opposite supported a recommendation that we have an independent parliamentary budget office. The member for Higgins was on the committee which unanimously recommended a parliamentary budget office, as was Senator Joyce. But, when it came to the House and the opposition realised the magnitude of the fiscal task which lay before them, they opposed a parliamentary budget office. They now say that they will not put their costings to be independently verified by a parliamentary budget office but will again use private accountants—private accountants who were, in the 2010 election, fined for their behaviour in looking into the opposition's costings.
We speak about a $70 billion black hole in the costings of those opposite but really we should be speaking about $70 billion of hidden cuts. That $70 billion is equivalent to stopping Medicare payments for four years and stopping the age pension for two years; it means cutting deeply into hospital spending and education and not investing in the future. In my electorate of Fraser it is already clear that one of the ways in which the opposition seeks to meet their massive fiscal target is to cut 12,000 jobs. The member for North Sydney has proudly spoken about making 12,000 Canberra public servants redundant. None of my constituents would have pride in that. Those opposite have said that they want to get rid of the Department of Climate Change. The member for North Sydney told Q&A last Monday that he does not know what public servants in the Department of Health and Ageing do. I might suggest he ask his leader who was, after all, the Minister for Health and Ageing under the Howard government when the Department of Health and Ageing employed about as many people as it does today.
On this side of the House, we are committed to keeping taxes as low as possible. Taxation as a proportion of the economy is lower now than it was under John Howard. The tax to GDP ratio was 23.7 per cent when Labor came to office; now it is 21.2 per cent. Our jobless rate has risen due to the global financial crisis but it has risen by only 0.7 per cent since Labor came to power. Compare that to a rise of 3.1 per cent in Britain and 3.6 per cent in the United States. The opposition's approach to the economic debate is all care and no responsibility. Those opposite would have thrown us into deep debt when the global financial crisis struck. We on this side of the House saved 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses from going to the wall. When it comes to taxes, we have put in place income tax cuts and we are delivering pension rises and tax cuts under the clean energy future package from 1 July this year. Under those opposite the only people who would get tax cuts are the big miners and the big polluters. When it comes to the surplus, we will return the budget to surplus in fiscal year 2012-13. Those opposite have a dozen positions on the surplus. They have no consistency on their economic message.
Finally, Deputy Speaker—and may I congratulate you on your ascension to the role—I want to address an issue raised by the member for Wright over the cost of living. We in this country have a metric for the cost of living. It is not the amount of hot air that comes out of the Leader of the Opposition's mouth; it is the inflation rate. The inflation rate now is lower than when Labor came to office. The inflation rate is stable under Labor and we are proud on this side of the House to have ensured price stability. Many things have in fact fallen in price over the last year. Among the categories of things for which prices are cheaper than they were a year ago are bread, milk, shoes, appliances, pharmaceuticals, cars, computers and toys.
Mr Buchholz: Thank God for that. I can go back to my electorate and tell them that.
Dr LEIGH: Do go back and tell your electorate, member for Wright. I would be very happy if you were to have an honest discussion with your electors about the cost of living—not the fearmongering that we have seen so often from your side of politics but some direct, fact based discussion. I know those opposite do not like dealing in facts. They would prefer to speak about towns being wiped off the map—
Mr Buchholz: Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. We are seven minutes in and not once have I heard the member who is your gun—the government's gun—on the TLAB actually address TLAB No.9. You have got to get close to it soon.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): The member for Fraser will address his remarks to the bill.
Dr LEIGH: I shall, and I hope you do not take the reflection on the chair that the member for Wright has issued there.
This is a fundamental piece of economic legislation that underpins the Gillard government's commitment to a strong economy. Under us income taxes are lower than when we came to office. Inflation is lower than when we came to office. Interest rates are lower than when we came to office. A family with a $300,000 mortgage is saving $3,000 a year thanks to lower interest rates under the Gillard government. I commend the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) 2011 Bill to the House. It a small piece to be sure but an important piece of the long-term economic reform that we on this side of the House are putting into place.
Let me conclude with the words of a constituent who came and saw me in the mobile office that I attended on Saturday at the National Multicultural Festival. He said to me: 'When you look out across all the people at this festival probably almost none of us will still be here in 80 years time, but our children and grandchildren will be here and the reforms we are putting into place are ensuring that their prosperity is upheld. Yes, they are good for the current generations but they are recognising that in politics we do what we can for the future. We are not here just to scaremonger.' He said: 'You should see through what Mr Abbott is proposing. You should see out his negativity and you should see him out of politics, because what is important is the future prosperity of all Australians.' I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:04): It is a pleasure to follow my friend the member for Fraser in this important debate about tax. It is also a debate about the legislation that is necessary to manage our economy, to balance our budget and to ensure not only that we have the revenue stream to ensure that government activity is sustained now and into the future but that our tax system regulates economic and personal activity in a way that is in the national interest. With that in mind, and adding that the minister is in the chamber, which is always a certain sign that the debate is going to wrap up at any time soon, I will restrict my comments to something that is very close to my heart, which is the issue of superannuation. The first schedule to this bill goes to the issue of superannuation and assisting people who have money in superannuation accounts to consolidate those funds.
It is a part of a Labor project. It was Labor that brought occupational superannuation into this parliament through the Hawke-Keating government in the late 1980s. It was Labor that saw the establishment of industry funds as the mainstay of workers' superannuation savings in this country. It is Labor that has ensured that we have a direct employee say in the management of those superannuation funds because we believe quite simply in worker capital. We believe that, if workers are putting literally hundreds of thousands of dollars into a savings vehicle for their retirement, then they should have some say in the management of those savings.
It is Labor that saw the shift in the superannuation employer contribution to employee superannuation from three per cent to nine per cent. And it will be Labor, against the fierce opposition of the member for Wright, and those who he sits in the chamber with, who will see the move in occupational superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent. This is all a part of Labor's project to ensure that, when workers retire, they have the dignity of a nest egg, a retirement egg.
Schedule 1 to this piece of legislation goes to that long-term project. It will enable the Australian Taxation Office to operate a scheme that will make it easier and simpler for lost superannuation fund members and retirement savings account holders to consolidate their benefits. We are not talking about small beer here. There is approximately $12.9 billion in lost superannuation that is unclaimed or is in unallocated superannuation accounts in this country today. It is $12.9 billion that belongs to somebody but is not yet allocated.
These measures are yet another step in the Labor project of ensuring that when workers earn their superannuation it goes into a well-managed fund and, when it goes into a well-managed fund, it ends up in their retirement savings account. It does this by amending the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 to enable certain superannuation fund members to simply electronically request the consolidation of their superannuation benefits through the Australian Taxation Office.
The scheme is going to be referred to as the Electronic Portability Form. The Electronic Portability Form will make it simpler and easier for lost superannuation fund members to consolidate their benefits. This, in turn, will reduce the fees paid on multiple accounts and will maximise members' retirement benefits. The Electronic Portability Form will allow lost superannuation fund members to electronically request the transfer of their benefits to their active accounts through a portal on the ATO website.
This means a lot to ordinary working families in my electorate of Throsby in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands. It means a lot to them because we have quite a high incidence of casual, part-time and seasonal workers. They are people who do not have the traditional pattern of employment where they will work from the beginning of their employment life until the day that they retire with one employer. It is quite likely that workers in my electorate may during the course of any one year have three or four employers, which is a series of employers throughout the course of a year or a series of employers at any one point in time. As they move from employer to employer and from job to job and, indeed, often from home to home, their superannuation accounts could get lost in that process.
I commend the minister for bringing this bill before the House, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the matter. As I said, it is a part of an important Labor project. At the heart of that important Labor project is this simple idea: if somebody works their entire life then they are entitled to a dignified retirement, not one that is reliant upon a pension and the vagaries of government decision making in relation to that pension. They are entitled to retire on the savings income that they have earned for their entire life. This bill is going to do its bit to ensure that $12.9 billion finds its rightful owners. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BRADBURY ( Lindsay — Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer ) ( 17:10 ): I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011. I wish to acknowledge those members whose contributions I have witnessed in the time that I have been here in the chamber—in particular, the members for Parramatta, Fraser and Throsby. I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wright. I thank him for his support of the bill and also for livening up the debate—even if that was with some rather misguided comments.
Schedule 1 of the bill allows regulations to prescribe the operating details of a scheme that allows the ATO to assist lost superannuation fund members to electronically consolidate their benefits. Lost members will be able to visit the ATO website, fill in a form online and submit it electronically to the ATO. The ATO will conduct verification processes and, if they are successful, they will send the form to the fund which reported the member as lost. This process will make it simpler and easier for people to claim their lost super. By consolidating their accounts, members will reduce the fees that they pay on multiple accounts and maximise their benefits on retirement.
Schedule 2 broadens access to certain CGT rollovers to make it easier for businesses to restructure. These changes provide greater flexibility for entities that convert from a body to an incorporated company, entities that use a share or sale interest facility for foreign interest holders in a restructure, and demerger groups that include corporations sole or complying superannuation entities.
Schedule 3 implements three of the recommendations agreed to by the government arising out of the Treasury's review of the GST financial supply provisions. The remaining measures require amendments to the GST regulations. This schedule amends the GST law to increase the first limb of the financial acquisition threshold from $50,000 to $150,000 , to exclude financial supplies consisting of a borrowing made through the provision of deposit accounts by an Australian authorised deposit-taking institution from the current concession for borrowings and to allow taxpayers who account on a cash basis to claim input tax credits for acquisitions made under hire purchase agreements upfront. The amendments will reduce compliance costs for businesses by reducing the number of businesses that are prevented from claiming input tax credits on acquisitions that relate to making financial supplies, removing the distortion between hire purchase and other forms of financing for cash based taxpayers, and ensuring that hire purchase agreements are treated the same regardless of whether taxpayers account on a cash basis or a non-cash basis. The amendments will also better target the borrowing exemptions to reflect the policy intent by no longer providing access to input tax credits for expenses related to borrowings in the form of deposit accounts provided by Australian authorised deposit-taking institutions.
The amendments in schedule 4 deal with the new residential premises provision and will ensure GST is payable on the full value added to newly constructed residential premises by developers and builders. This is achieved by ensuring GST is applied to the retail sale of new residential premises to home owners and investors as well as the wholesale supply of the premises to the developer or builder.
Schedule 5 amends the deductible gift recipient provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim an income tax deduction for gifts to organisations that are DGRs. Schedule 5 adds one new organisation to the act—namely, the Rhodes Trust in Australia. Making this organisation a DGR will assist it to attract public support for its activities. This schedule also recognises the name change of Playgroup Australia Inc. to Playgroup Australia Ltd. Finally, schedule 6 covers miscellaneous and technical amendments to the tax laws. These amendments are part of the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax law and include some legislative issues raised by the public through the Tax Issues Entry System, or TIES for short. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
National Sorry Day
Debate resumed.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (17:16): I had the privilege this morning of meeting with the national Stolen Generations Alliance, who had a breakfast at which two speakers left an indelible impression on the hearts and minds of those who were in attendance. Both were taken as young children from their mothers and adopted. One ended up in Wales, the other in London. Both, throughout their lives, realised there was something different about them because they could not see any other cultural grouping that looked anything like theirs. Throughout that period, both came to the realisation that there would come a point in their lives when they would need to backtrack and have a look at where their families were. Both described their experiences of talking to their adopted families, the support they did and did not receive and of making the journey back to Australia.
Levon, when he came back, discovered where his biological parents were and where his brothers and sisters were. His reunion was much more challenging because there was a difference—or, as he described it, a brick wall—although he has been slowly working through those challenges. Leonie, on the other hand, was fortunate that she had a sister who left a letter on her Link-Up file with all the details of who her mother, father, brothers and sisters were and a point of contact, should she ever inquire. So when she came back to Australia she was able to make contact and re-establish the linkages with her family. She struggled, but she also appreciates the fact that she is now reunited with them.
When the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the apology in the House, as I have said previously in this chamber, he created a healing process that was absolutely critical to this nation. It was an acknowledgement of decisions and policies that had good intent, but their unintended consequences were greater and more far-reaching in the pain and grief that they caused. I had the privilege of meeting with the boys from Kinchela Boys Home in New South Wales and heard some of their stories. When you sit and listen to the emptiness they describe in their lives within the institution, you are left with a sense of what would have been their opportunities and pathways had they been with their families and not been institutionalised or not experienced the pain that they did.
In all of the stories that I have heard or read or that have been provided to me by elders and those who have been affected by the stolen generations, including my own mother, where bitterness prevailed it is replaced by forgiveness. There is a knowledge that there was recognition by the Prime Minister and the Australian parliament that the events that occurred to them were made known to Australian society. When I travelled overseas to Europe one of the things that came up constantly was people who would say that they were pleased. When I was in the Emirates I had comments that they respected the fact that there was an acknowledgement of the first nations people. I assume that is only because of the travel and business arrangements that prevail between countries, but it was certainly acknowledged in that context.
I want to read the charter of the Ngunawal elders. This morning I was given, with some pride, the stories of the Ngunawal people who were affected by the stolen generation and who were taken. One of the things I have always respected about our people, or our mob, is that we have a tremendous capacity to forgive when challenges have beset us. We have seen those challenges as points in time but we have always negotiated and moved on from where we have been. The charter says this:
Our Unity is a journey of healing. We have taken the first big step and along the path people will join with us (and leave) but everyone is welcome.
In welcoming people, we know the following to be true:
That our Elders have our respect. We are honoured by their giving respect back. We acknowledge them for assuming responsibility as leaders in our community.
We need to come together to create our future – one in which everyone has a place where they can feel proud, have dignity, and feel they belong.
That communication is everything and we do this in a supportive way to know more about each other, our history and our culture. These knowledges we make are ours together, although it belongs not only to us, but it’s also for our kids and grandkids too. And it is for them that we do this work now.
It takes courage to do work for the greater good. We need to learn how to solve problems, include not isolate, to listen with our hearts and speak from our souls.
In being courageous we are a direct link back to the Dreamtime. This is the essence of Aboriginality, as is our relationship to land.
In this Journey we strive for Unity. We do this by empowering people, creating confidence, self-esteem and room for difference so we can work and laugh together, moving forward all the while.
We, each and every one of us, want this; not only for ourselves and our families. We want this, too, for people who need it the most.
The Stolen Generations Alliance today brought together members of the stolen generation to talk about the future and to look at the opportunities that lie ahead in this great country of ours. They talked and shared the experience of the pain. But that pain is not an inhibitor to the way they want to see the knowledge of the past, and also the knowledge of the future and the directions we take, as equally that of all Australians in concert with the people of the first nations. It is about the way in which we create the opportunities.
In their statement, the Stolen Generations Working Partnership, they talk about the priority issues, the things that they want to see change so that we never have the past repeated on any group for any reason, and about respect, dignity and understanding. I would love to see universities around this country adopt 20 members of the stolen generation so that they are able to be part of the processes of lifelong learning, to be engaged in some of the forums and discussions that will occur around Indigenous affairs and to be able to tell a chapter within the history of Australia from a point of engagement, where people can seek to understand, ask questions and have answers. I must say that I enjoy a privileged position in this House because I do have members of this parliament from all parties at different times come and ask me questions about our people, our mob. They will say sometimes, 'Can I ask you a politically incorrect question?' But to me no question is politically incorrect if you are seeking to enhance your knowledge and to increase your understanding. I think in that sense there is a beauty in having members of the stolen generation working and being part of university life, because our greatest knowledge acquisition, other than the early years of our lives, certainly comes through the tertiary institutions which so many Australians attend, including overseas students. What a rich, living, cultural history they would participate and share in.
For the members of the stolen generation, in talking about accessing services equally across all areas consistently, I would certainly support the Closing the Gap measures because they do address the very issues that the stolen generation have continually raised. One of the challenges in Closing the Gap is that it is not uniform across the nation; it is not uniform in terms of urban, rural and remote areas. Nevertheless, there is a focus on some very critical areas, but we have still have much to do. They talk about the greater awareness needed across government and non-government agencies. The former Prime Minister said, 'If we are not finding solutions to the problems then maybe there is a better way that we need to do business.' Certainly the stolen generation have put forward the proposition on several occasions that they want to be equal partners. They want to be there to help shape the future, the services and the access to what is offered to all Australians, not just through Indigenous moneys, because, as a society, in government we provide for all regardless of their location. We should ensure that there is continuity and access to government services. I deliberately use the term 'government services' because 'mainstream services' has, I think, a connotation around it, whereas any service provided by a government is provided to the citizens of that nation and that country and certainly within the jurisdictions.
They have been very strong in helping to heal those whose pain and grief is still problematic. If you want to read a piece of research that is significant and really highlights that intergenerational impact, I commend to members a report written by the Western Australian Institute of Child Health Research, under the leadership of Professor Fiona Stanley. The WA Aboriginal Child Health Survey went beyond something like 4,000 families. The last chapter of that social and emotional wellbeing publication deals with the impact on children of members of the stolen generation, and it highlights the aspect of mental illnesses and the debilitating impact that caring for somebody from the stolen generation has had on them and their likelihood of success in other areas. I know that, when we produced that chapter and provided it to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth agency at the time asked for empirical data and evidence that our findings had some substance to them. But the report certainly showed that, when you look after somebody who has been traumatised or who has been significantly hurt, where there is both an emotional and a psychological scar both within the mind and on the heart, there are some subsequent flow-on effects from that.
I would hope that, as governments prevail for at least the next decade, we set some long-term vision around how we can reach all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. When we think that there are only 700,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, we break them into family units and that reduces the number. But, if we take the concept that 25 per cent of Aboriginal families are in working environments where the income is sustained through jobs, it means that we really have to focus on only 75 per cent. When you consider that number in the context of government services, we should alleviate those pressure points around education, justice, health and other government services, including housing. I want to acknowledge all of those members of the stolen generation. The National Stolen Generations Alliance supports the implementation of the recommendations from the Bringing them home report. The report's introduction in part states:
For individuals, their removal as children and the abuse they experienced at the hands of the authorities or their delegates have permanently scarred their lives. The harm continues in later generations, affecting their children and grandchildren.
It then goes on to say:
In no sense has the Inquiry been ‘raking over the past’ for its own sake. The truth is that the past is very much with us today, in the continuing devastation of the lives of Indigenous Australians. That devastation cannot be addressed unless the whole community listens with an open heart and mind to the stories of what has happened in the past and, having listened and understood, commits itself to reconciliation.
Walking and working together and in unity mend what was the past but build for a future that strengthens our nation.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (17:31): It was William Faulkner who said: 'The past is never dead. It's not even past.' Today, we are so reminded of how apt that line is in considering the national apology. The national apology to the stolen generations on 13 February 2008 saw the Australian parliament acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by previous policies and finally say, 'We are sorry'. It is an honour for me to follow in this debate the member for Hasluck, somebody who I have a great admiration for on this issue and many others. I count myself among those in this place who has been fortunate to have benefited from his wisdom, and I hope to learn more from him during our times here.
Today is a day to remember but it is also a day to acknowledge the need for continued action to close the gaps. Today the minister launched a testimonies website, www.stolengenerationstestimonies.com. It is a moving website on which Australians can see many of the stories of people from the stolen generations—an important way of ensuring that what is past continues to be remembered for a portion of our history. I want to acknowledge today the work of the National Stolen Generations Alliance and the National Sorry Day Committee in doing so much to recognise the stolen generations.
One of the things that I would like to speak about today is the important role that education can play in closing the gaps in Australia. When I was an academic at the ANU, one of the projects I worked on was looking at the Indigenous test score gap in Australia. My co-author, Xiaodong Gong, and I found that, when Indigenous children reach school, they are on average a year behind their non-Indigenous peers but that by the end of primary school, the gap has widened to two years. That is in some sense a depressing message, because we can see Indigenous children falling behind their non-Indigenous counterparts. But, on the other hand, it is an optimistic message because schools, frankly, are easier to fix than the complexities of family background.
When I was up in Cape York as part of the House Economics Committee's inquiry, we heard much about the work that is being done in Cape York to improve schools, to take the best of what is occurring elsewhere in the world. One witness, Phyllis Yunkaporta, from Noel Pearson's Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy, told the committee:
I guess in time we have to have expectations for our children to be educated in a way where they have to balance both worlds—the Western world and the traditional way. Of course we want them to hang onto the traditional way because that is where they are going to be identifying themselves for the future. And with them having to venture out into the mainstream, we want them to compete. It is a competitive world out there. We want our black little kids to start taking on the world.
I commend to the House Noel Pearson's Quarterly Essay on education, 'Radical hope', which speaks so articulately on the importance of high standards and the importance of combining good literacy and numeracy education with high-quality cultural education as well. It is also an essay which speaks very carefully to the balance between teacher quality and curriculum, an important balance to get right in Indigenous communities, as in non-Indigenous communities.
Another form of educational investment that can help close the gaps is in the area of higher education. It was my pleasure on 7 November last year to represent the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations in presenting Indigenous higher education staff scholarships. Among the recipients of those scholarships were Ann-Maree Hammond, from the University of Southern Queensland; Luke Halvorsen, from the Wollotuka Institute at the University of Newcastle; Catherine Taylor and Wayne Applebee, from the University of Canberra; James Charles and Elizabeth Cameron, from the University of Newcastle; Cheree Dean, from Charles Sturt University; and Jonelle Green, from La Trobe University. It was terrific for me to hear their stories and how they are helping to transform Australian higher education for the better.
On the evening, there were also awards presented to elders for their outstanding contribution to the higher education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Awards were presented to Aunty Ruth Hegarty, from the Australian Catholic University; Aunty Rosmund Miriam Graham, from Griffith University; Aunty Joan Vickery, from Monash University and the University of Melbourne; and Ms Rose Guywanga and Reverend Dr Dinyini Gondarra, from Charles Darwin University. Waymamba Gaykamangu, a retired lecturer from Charles Darwin University, was also presented with a 2010 Elders award. All of these awards are part of ensuring that Indigenous higher education is as good as it can be.
We are speaking today about Sorry Day, but I want to end with a message of optimism. One of the great things about this country is our Indigenous heritage. For me as a non-Indigenous Australian, it is a great source of pride to live in a country which has a people with the oldest continuing link to the land. We need to speak about the wrongs that have been done but we also need to speak about how great it is for us as Australians all to participate in part of that culture.
There are many Indigenous constituents of whom I am enormously proud. Peter Radoll, Director of the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre of the Australian National University, is a font of great stories about Indigenous success at the ANU. Julie Tongs, the director of the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Centre, in Narrabundah, has done extraordinary work to improve the health of Indigenous people in the ACT. Mr Duncan Smith, the Wiradjuri artist who I understand carved an artwork that was presented this morning, is an amazing role model to Indigenous youth in the ACT and somebody from whom I have learned a great deal in the time that I have known him. Matilda House is a wonderful Indigenous woman who is there at so many functions in the ACT, reminding us of the importance of welcoming to country. That is a reminder which I particularly see opening the eyes of overseas visitors, who are sometimes hearing about the tradition of welcoming to country for the first time and, in the case of some US visitors, will turn around afterwards and say, 'Why don't we do more of that back home?'
So it is a day to say sorry but it is also a day to look forward with optimism to an Australia that closes the gaps and engenders a great sense of pride in our extraordinary Indigenous heritage.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (17:39): Four years ago today, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered his famous 'sorry speech'. His fourth sentence underlined a determination felt by many:
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
A little later in his speech, Mr Rudd spoke of:
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.
While we acknowledge the momentous nature of that particular day, of most importance is what has happened to better the lives of Aboriginal people since then. Acknowledgements in this parliament are one thing but they will be seen only as empty platitudes if measures of real worth are not delivered to back up the words. Aboriginal Australians are like everybody else when it comes to the aspects of life that matter most. Above all else, they need good health services, a decent education and a roof over their heads. Staying healthy is the key to a quality life; education opens up opportunities which would otherwise not be available; and reliable, affordable housing is paramount.
The life expectancy of Aboriginal males was estimated to be 59.4 years over the period from 1996 to 2001, while the life expectancy of Aboriginal females was estimated to be 64.8 years. When compared to the life expectancy of the general Australian population, that is a life expectancy inequality gap of about 17 years in that same five-year period. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that an Aboriginal male born in the period from 2005 to 2007 could expect to live to the age of 67.2 years, or about 11½ years less than a non-Aboriginal male at that time, who could expect to live to 78.7 years. In the same period, an Aboriginal female could be expected to live to 72.9 years on average, which is almost 10 years less than a non-Aboriginal woman, who could expect to live to 82.6 years.
The infant mortality rate among the Aboriginal population is, sadly, all too high. Babies born to Aboriginal women are far more likely to die in their first year than those born to non-Aboriginal women. Between 2006 and 2008, the infant mortality rate for babies born to Aboriginal women was as high as 14 babies out of 1,000 births in the Northern Territory. In contrast, the rate for the total Australian population was 4.1 deaths per 1,000 births in 2008. Despite the 'sorry' acknowledgement, infant mortality among the Aboriginal population is, tragically, still too high.
Heart and related conditions are 1.3 times more common for Aboriginal people than for non-Aboriginal people. High blood pressure, the most commonly reported condition, is 1½ times more common. Diabetes is around 3½ times more common among Aboriginal people than among other Australians. In the period from 2002 to 2006, deaths from chronic kidney disease were seven times more common for Aboriginal males and 11 times more common for Aboriginal females than for non-Aboriginal Australians living in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Aboriginal statistics for other illnesses and diseases are far higher than for the rest of society.
Educational attainment among Aboriginal youth is, happily, improving, but far more needs to be done. The Northern Territory government's own education budget papers have targeted attendance rates at around 32 per cent for Aboriginal primary school students attending school regularly. Clearly, this is a terribly low target figure.
This government constantly talks about closing the gap. However, in some key areas very little has changed. Mr Rudd said in 2008:
I therefore propose a joint policy commission, to be led by the Leader of the Opposition and me, with a mandate to develop and implement—to begin with—an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years.
That is a noble aim and ambition. However, it is a fact that Aboriginal people in many areas, including Tumut and Brungle in my electorate of the Riverina, are in desperate need of better housing. On 2 December 2011, in company with the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, I visited Aboriginal centres in the irrigation zones of the Riverina electorate. One of those places that we visited was Tirkandi Inaburra, which means 'To learn to dream' in the Wiradjuri language. Tirkandi Inaburra is a cultural and development centre located between Darlington Point and Coleambally on a 780-hectare rural property. It is a centre offering Aboriginal boys aged between 12 and 15 years a culturally based residential program teaching them confidence, self-respect and resilience, and hopefully reducing contact with the criminal justice system. For three to six months the students engage in learning in educational, sporting, recreational and life and living skills and cultural activities which have all have been designed to incrementally develop each participant's skills and abilities. The centre, as I say, is between Coleambally and Darlington Point and is making a wonderful adjustment and change to these young boys' lives. At present, Tirkandi Inaburra is the only centre in Australia which provides such a wonderful opportunity to Aboriginal males. It is only boys who live in communities located between the Lachlan and Murray and between Balranald and the western side of the Blue Mountains who are eligible to apply to come to the centre.
More centres such as this, for both boys and girls, is what we should be promising our Aboriginal students to reach the goal of a higher percentage of graduates by 2020. As Senator Scullion said, this should be a model which should be replicated elsewhere. I quote him:
It is a tremendous concept and would make such a difference to more lives if it were established in other places.
The sorry speech was a start. Let us, as a parliament and a Commonwealth, now work towards real improvements in Aboriginal health, Aboriginal education and Aboriginal housing as a means to being genuine partners, together united towards a better future.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (17:46): I start my contribution to the debate on National Sorry Day by acknowledging that we meet here today on the land of the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples and I pay my respect to the elders past and present. Doing that is not something that came naturally to my generation. We were not exposed to that through our education system. I can remember at school collecting money for the Aboriginal Advancement League. That was the only exposure that we would ever have. It is ironic that we had trainee teachers come from Papua New Guinea to our school, but indigenous affairs was not something that was front and centre in my education.
So when the amateur psychologists try to work out what was in my mind as I opened proceedings on 24 November last year before my resignation as Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the raw emotion I displayed was in response to the realisation that it was the last time that I would make that statement that now forms part of our standing orders to the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples. My son reminded me, 'Dad, at least you were the first Speaker who got to do it.' Sometimes sons have a way of looking at a glass as half full when I seem to always think it is half empty.
I was a member of this place from 1986 to 1997, and for a brief moment early on in that time, for a couple of months before an election, I was dragooned—and I mean dragooned—onto the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I think I attended one meeting. The electorate of Scullin had something like .03 per cent Indigenous people when I was first elected. The city of Whittlesea, which is one of the main local government units, now has the third largest Indigenous population in Victoria. So in the quarter of a century since my election, mainly due to the search for affordable housing on the urban fringe, the Indigenous population there has become much larger. But it was the Bringing them home report that was my first experience of thinking about the issues of Indigenous Australians and what they had suffered and what they had enjoyed. I do not think that we should see this as something to do with negativity. This is about being very positive and moving forward. It was this report and the reflection on what we had seen since Europeans came and started what we refer to as the 'modern Australia' that made me think that there was something that we should be doing, not only because as members of this place we are integral to the formation of government, but because each of us as individuals, I believe, is very important as a community leader. We should be showing that leadership within our communities.
In an adjournment speech, I think in June 1997, I read a few things out of the Bringing them home report. Some went back into history about what people had said in the twenties. There was also a quote from a person that went on to be a valuable member of this place, from another political party, John McEwen when he was Minister for the Interior. He visited what was known then as the Half-caste Home in Darwin in 1937. McEwen being of the land really knew what he was saying when he said:
I know many stock breeders who would not dream of crowding their stock in the way that these half-caste children are huddled.
The other thing that came home to me was when I read the story of a young man born in 1964 and I realised that he was just a little younger than my younger sister who was born in 1963. He talked about being removed from his mother and the struggles, when the records were revealed, that the mother had had in trying to make contact with the young lad. Birthday cards and Christmas cards were not delivered but were put on his file. When he discovered his mother, she was working in an institution that looked after orphaned Aboriginal children. Fortunately they had six months to enjoy getting acquainted.
Luckily for me, straight after the tabling of Bringing them home, I was a member of the House of Representatives Committee on Family and Community Affairs for the period, I think, 1998 to 2000 when we had our inquiry into Indigenous health. That was a privilege. What we saw was often horrific, because you could not believe that people living in Australia in that period should have been left behind. Some of the communities that we visited were confronting, not because they were dysfunctional but because I, a lad from the northern suburbs of Melbourne, had not been exposed to them. The people themselves, the Indigenous people, were so open in the way that they came before us and discussed the issues and solutions and the way that they saw forward.
I slightly digress as I feel obliged because I think of him often. We had as an adviser somebody who was instrumental in the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, the late Puggy Hunter, who travelled with us. I guess Puggy was just a little bit younger than me. He was a great person to explain what it meant being involved in Indigenous health services. One of the things that really struck me—and at that time it was not something that I had to really worry about—was when he said: 'You just get tired when you spend your time attending the funerals of people of your own age.' As I said, that was not something that I had to think about then. I am getting closer to that time now, and that is the difference.
There is a brilliant young Indigenous doctor, Ngiare Brown—a wonderful person. When I visited the medical faculty at Darwin University last year, I saw a number of Indigenous Australians involved in studying to become a doctor. There should be more but it is getting there; it is noticeable. I think that is important.
The other aspect of note from this inquiry occurred on the day that we were in Sydney. We were taking evidence from the Aids Council of New South Wales. Chris, a young bloke who was there, was the men's Aboriginal worker. He had been putting his evidence about his day-to-day work and then in a 'by the way' manner he said: 'But the real thing is: how would you feel if you were a bloke like me'—and, again, I think he was born about the time of my sister—'and when you were born you were a non-person? You weren't counted in the census.' It had never struck me that I was involved. I was of a similar age to him and I had a sister his age. So he was talking about my generation. As a person he has turned out very successfully but in the back of his mind is this fact that when he was born that was his status. That was when I started to think that some of these things are really very difficult for these individuals. Some of the things that we have 'institutionally' done through our laws have to be recognised and rectified. And so, as time went on and we built the momentum to seeing the events of four years ago today, the understanding of the importance of these symbolic steps dawned on me. The fact is that we had to do these things.
How lucky do you get in life? You get elected Speaker of the House of Representatives one day and you think that is pretty good. You bounce the ball on proceedings at 9 o'clock the next morning and then you go through one of the most moving experiences that you can ever be involved in, because the emotion on that day here, four years ago, was quite extraordinary. The fact that it really meant something was tangible. As part of the proceedings, I received the glass coolamon. It was presented to Prime Minister Rudd and then Leader of the Opposition Nelson, who presented it to me in the chair. The people of this place, the people who work here, had it on display that afternoon; it is now appropriately displayed. It is a very, very important symbol—the coolamon, a tool of antiquity. Coolamons are usually carved or made from bark but this one was made of a more modern material, glass, and in the Indigenous colours as a symbol of the Indigenous flag. That coolamon is displayed here as a reminder.
The function today was held at 10 o'clock but I had to leave because I had another thing to do. As I moved out, who should I bump into but Aunty Lorraine Peeters, who had actually presented the coolamon. Many things happen that make you think that these things are really meant to happen. I got to briefly say to her 'Welcome back' and things like that. Today's small ceremony was very important because of what it emphasised. The contributions that have been made by the member for Hasluck, the member for Canberra and the member for Riverina are important because they all recognise that we are still on a journey. For me personally, at a very small gathering in this place to celebrate what happened four years ago, my reading of it was that people were still walking together, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and that there was a determination to make things happen. That to me is very important.
The Stolen Generations Alliance gathers around a journey of healing, truth and justice. I think that is something that we should be very optimistic about, but it is a hard slog. It is not going to be easy. When we get into the political debate across the chamber it is right to keep each other honest, but I think that in this place there is a great deal more determination to rectify the wrongs of the past and to do the right thing that transcends the politics. We will have the argy-bargy about some of the methods, but importantly we still have to continue the dialogue. My friend Ken Wyatt described what the people of the stolen generation themselves are putting together as their view of the way forward, and that is important because that dialogue is going to be important in the way we move forward.
Today it is appropriate that we acknowledge by these short statements—although mine should have been shorter—our determination to see the task through. We recognise that this is a situation that requires all of us to work together in partnership, to listen, to continue to understand the hurt that there was and to see that things can be very positive in our determination to improve all those things that are important. The inquiry that the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs did was entitled Health is life. Why Health is life? We had a bit of difficulty finding a term or expression in an Indigenous language for health. We heard from the National Aboriginal Health Strategy Working Party that:
In Aboriginal society there is no word, term or expression for ‘health’ as it is understood in western society … The word as it is used in Western society almost defies translation but the nearest translation in an Aboriginal context would probably be a term such as ‘life is health is life’.
That is the important thing in so much of Indigenous culture that transcends our known bounds of definition—the association with the land and that type of thought about health. To our Indigenous brothers and sisters I indicate that I am pleased that the journey has a greater pace than when I was first elected to this place. It is not the end; it is part of the beginning. We should all be determined to ensure that the gaps are closed.
Dr STONE (Murray) (18:04): I wish to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of Australia, wherever they may be. In particular, I acknowledge the special status of the Yorta Yorta, Bangarang and other Indigenous peoples in my electorate of Murray. Today I am recognising the anniversary of the national declaration of Sorry Day on 13 February 2008. This followed the motion of regret passed on 26 August 1999, moved by John Howard when he was Prime Minister, with words fashioned in consultation with Indigenous leaders of the day.
The problem continues to be that few Australians are closely familiar with the facts of the contact history of our country. We did have frontier wars as different Aboriginal nations fought to keep their land and defend their people. We did have native police, led by white officers with secret verbal instructions to 'track and disperse' the natives—a euphemism for shooting to kill. We did have slavery, which we called the indenturing system, whereby Indigenous children were forced into labour without pay, some from the age of six, with masters who could and did summon the police to track them down, punish them and return them to work when they escaped. We did have 'miscegenation policies', which is a euphemism for 'breed them white', when it was noticed that Aborigines of mixed descent were outnumbering so-called full bloods in many places and when the economy was desperately short of manual labourers.
These colonial and post-Federation policies are described in detail and documented in a series of royal commissions and parliamentary inquiries—in the House of Commons in the UK, in every Australian colonial parliament and then in the states and the Commonwealth after 1901. Page after page of sworn evidence gives a window onto the attitudes and policies which we find unthinkable today but which led to the need for the nation to collectively say sorry on 13 February 2008.
I think it is timely to be reminded of how far we have come as a nation in adjusting our attitudes and responses to the Indigenous peoples of Australia—the original owners. Today Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are acknowledged with protocols and with respect where once they were mostly or only objects of sympathy or disgust or were racially vilified.
In 1977 my documentary history of official government policy and race relations was published after years of research. I still reach to these documentary extracts to remind myself—often—that the miracle is that Aboriginal people survived with their oldest living culture intact or evolved in many parts of modern Australia and that some of their languages survive but, most importantly, that their identity as Aboriginal peoples has never been stronger since the usurpation of their countries which began in earnest in 1788.
I want to read from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers, volume 2, part 2, 1929, when the Chief Protector, Mr Bleakley, reported on the conditions of the Aborigines and half-castes of Central Australia and North Australia. He reported under the heading 'Quadroons and octoroons' after going through various other headings describing full bloods, half-castes and so on:
As already indicated the crossbreed with a preponderance of white blood should be considered separately. Their blood entitles them to be given a chance to take their place in the white community and on as favourable a footing as possible. That this may be successfully accomplished, the children should be removed from aboriginal associations at the earliest possible age and given all the advantages in education and vocational training possible to white State children to minimise as far as possible the handicap of their colour and friendless circumstances.
He goes on:
To avoid the dangers of the blood call, employment should be found where they will not come into contact with aborigines or aboriginal half castes. In spite of such precautions however, a few will doubtless drift back, and it may be found advisable to allow, even encourage, the marriage of such difficult cases with crossbreeds of darker strain.
He continues:
While official supervision and control is essential in their own interests, any appearance of branding with the aboriginal stamp should be avoided so as not to hamper unduly their upward progress. For instance, a rigid application of the regulation rates of wages for aboriginals would be manifestly unfair, as, with equal opportunities for learning, many should prove as useful as the average European servant.
This advice and Bleakley's recommendation were already in play in some parts of Australia at that time—we are talking about the 1920s. Following this very significant report to the government they were taken up more seriously. The children were removed from their parents—often forcibly, of course, and often after a great deal of hunting and tracking by police to find those children. They were placed in missions and training institutions. These children are often referred to today as the stolen generations. But did governments of the day, whether state or Commonwealth or the nascent territory governments, in fact honour the misguided but philanthropic intentions of Chief Protector Bleakley and his like minded officials and members of parliament? Did they in fact protect and educate these children who were taken away? Sadly, the children removed to be educated and raised as white were too often neglected and abused.
In the House of Representatives Commonwealth parliamentary debates of 1939 to 1940, on 7 December my predecessor, the member for Murray, Sir John McEwen, complained about the condition of the Alice Springs shelter for half-castes. He said:
There I saw a state of affairs which honorable members will find it difficult to believe—120 half-caste children, and 13 or 14 adult fullblooded and half-caste women, the parents of some of the young half-caste children, living in that most deplorable old building, which, when it rained heavily, took in the water almost as if there were no roof at all. The dormitories were a disgrace. …
The building was roofed with corrugated iron, and had a concrete floor, so that it must certainly have been too hot in summer and almost unbearably cold in winter. I know many stud stock breeders who would not dream of crowding their stock in the way that these half-caste children were huddled in this institution in Alice Springs. Today I see that there is not one penny of the estimates to correct the deplorable state of affairs that exists at Alice Springs. It is a shameful thing to allow it to continue.
Sir John went on to describe the so-called half-caste compound at Darwin as equally shocking and disturbing and without any relief in sight.
It is right that we remind Australian citizens of this parliament's 'sorry' motion, moved in parliament four years ago. We also need to remind ourselves of its forerunner under the Howard government in 1999 and the Reconciliation Council, which worked for a number of years. I was proudly a government representative on that council. We tried to put together something that in some way would be for all Australians a serious and real statement of reconciliation. We need to continue, however, to translate a sense of sorrow and regret into real actions and new commitments for all Australians.
I am very pleased to be the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. We have just completed a study of adolescent youths in custody and we are now considering how to retain and restore Indigenous languages at the same time as helping all Indigenous children become fluent in English so that they can fully participate in the broader Australian society. This is important work, and I am constantly struck by the goodwill of those working in the fields of linguistics, education and policy making who stepped forward to give evidence to our inquiry. There were Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people from every background and from every part of Australia.
We have come a very long way from our often brutal colonial views and actions. We are a great nation with a great future for all Australians and our spirit of reconciliation is a lesson to be learned by many other countries struggling to reach the point that we are now at in our nation. But we must never forget the past as we build a better future. We must never forget that all things are possible when people from different parts of the country remember that we are in fact all humans with equal opportunities and with an equal sense of our own humanity.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (18:14): I acknowledge the Ngunawal and the Ngambri peoples as the traditional custodians of the Canberra area and the Noongar people as the traditional custodians of south-west Australia, including my electorate of Fremantle. I would like to take this opportunity on the fourth anniversary of the national apology to Indigenous Australians, including the stolen generations, to acknowledge that remarkable day in this place and to express the wish that we will see the hopes of that day become reality in the foreseeable future. Australia has received international recognition for the apology, as well as for endorsing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons and for the implementation of the highly acclaimed Indigenous Electoral Participation Program. Of course, we now have a welcome to country at the opening of parliament and we acknowledge traditional custodians at the beginning of each parliamentary day. Importantly, we are presently embarked on a process to achieve constitutional recognition of Australia's first peoples. The government has also taken many positive initiatives under the Closing the Gap program, which will be detailed shortly in the annual statement by the Prime Minister.
However, the disturbing fact remains, at present, that Aboriginal people still suffer significantly poorer health, education and employment outcomes than non-Indigenous Australians and are vastly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The appalling death of Aboriginal elder Mr Ward in the back of a prison van in early 2008 after a raft of failures by WA Police and a number of WA government departments and by the private contractor G4S and its employees remains emblematic of the challenges.
The disturbing events of Australia Day this year were, in my view, at least partly attributable to the overwhelming despair and frustration felt by many Aboriginal Australians over the ongoing plight of their communities. The dramatic scenes on Australia Day also serve to highlight the essential discomforting aspect of our national day. It is not a unifying event. The date of 26 January marks the start of white settlement in New South Wales 224 years ago. There is nothing about that date that unifies the nation in and of itself. It also marks the beginning of the dispossession of Australia's Indigenous populations from their lands, from their families and from their culture. Given the disadvantage still suffered by Aboriginal Australians, it is no wonder they object to a celebration of this nature.
We share our national date with India's Republic Day, which commemorates the coming into force of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950 and the freedom struggle leading up to that event. Other nations, including the US and Bangladesh, celebrate their national day as the day they attained independence. Australia became a federation on 1 January 1901. The federal parliament first met on 9 May of that year. Australia became independent of British legal jurisdiction on 3 March 1986, when the Australia Act came into operation. These have been suggested as perhaps more appropriate days. I raise this matter in the hope that it will be part of a wider community discussion, as it seems to be something you only hear on and about Australia Day, which then gets forgotten until the following year. Perhaps it will naturally be a part of a revived national debate around an Australian republic.
Another matter I wish to raise in this place today is the lack of Aboriginal representation in the national parliament. While there have been a number of Aboriginal MPs in state and territory parliaments around the country, there has been only one Aboriginal representative in the House of Representatives, the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, elected in August 2010, and prior to that only two Aboriginal representatives in the Senate.
In late 2010 I attended an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference on behalf of the Australian parliament on the subject of effective participation in politics of minorities and Indigenous peoples. The conference was held in Mexico in the state of Chiapas, which contains the largest indigenous population in Mexico. The conference discussed the fact that adequate representation of minorities and indigenous peoples in policy and decision making is instrumental in breaking the cycle of poverty, discrimination and disadvantage that many members of these groups suffer, but the fact remains that minorities and indigenous peoples often remain excluded from effective decision making, including in national parliaments.
It was noted that one of the criteria for a democratic parliament is that it should reflect the diversity of the population and ensure that all citizens can participate equally. It was felt that the presence of representatives of minorities and indigenous peoples in parliament is important both symbolically and substantively. Symbolically, it transmits a clear message that they are part of the national community and take part in decisions regarding the nation's future. Substantively, they can directly influence the work of the parliament and they can also promote the interests and concerns of their communities. But ultimately it is not just up to Aboriginal people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds to represent their communities' needs and concerns; it is up to all of us who want to see an inclusive parliament and a truly inclusive society.
The Chiapas Declaration made a number of recommendations, including that a debate be held in the national parliament on the representation of minorities and indigenous peoples and that a national plan of action be developed to make the right of equal participation and nondiscrimination a reality. The declaration also called upon political parties to promote the effective participation of minorities and indigenous peoples. I intend to move a motion relating to the Chiapas Declaration in the near future and I hope I will have the support of the whole parliament. As other speakers to this Sorry Day motion have noted, the original Sorry Day four years ago was, of course, not a final resolution but just the beginning of making things right. Some progress has been made and much remains to be done. As said so eloquently just now by the member for Scullin, we are on a journey together. I applaud the work of Reconciliation Australia, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the Close the Gap campaign, the Deaths in Custody Watch Committee, Halo, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and all those committed in this place and elsewhere to genuine progress and reconciliation, both substantive and symbolic, for Indigenous Australians.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (18:20): I too want to acknowledge the Ngambri and Ngunawal people and pay my respects to elders, past and present, and also acknowledge the huge pride I feel when I walk with and learn from the Darug people who are part of the Chifley electorate. Too often the vision of our nation's parliament that is captured on nightly news, in media or elsewhere is one that focuses much on the conflict and the drama that tends to inhabit certain corners of this place. However, I think it would benefit the Australian community to, in some part, also witness the words and sentiments that are expressed in this place.
In particular I wish to draw attention to what has occurred here today in recognising Sorry Day and the contributions that have been made by a number of people including the member for Fremantle a few moments ago. I was also particularly impressed by the member for Murray and her powerful contribution. I came in at the tail-end of the member for Scullin's contribution. While he obviously played an enormously critical role to the parliament—a role that he has more recently occupied—not only does he bring to this chamber a voice of reason and regard but also he is something that we may also benefit from. I listened carefully to his contribution and I want to acknowledge the member for Scullin and what he had to say, particularly as reflected on by the member for Fremantle, that we are on a journey together and that the apology itself did not mark an end point but is something that we need to continually work from and aspire to make better.
Today, as every anniversary since the apology delivered by then Prime Minister Rudd, the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group that operates in the electorate of Chifley commemorates the day usually at the Holy Family Centre at Emerton. Chifley, I am proud to say, is home to probably about 6,000 people from Aboriginal background and I am proud to represent and work with locals in advancing their interests in terms of developing a better future, not only for themselves but also for their kids.
Today they will welcome an extremely special guest, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda. The group were particularly fond of an address that he provided to the National Press Club in November 2010. He spoke in that address about his commitment and the work that he would contribute towards the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I wanted to reflect on some of his words when he said:
It’s not about looking back.
It’s about looking forward and moving forward as one, united nation.
One mob under the Southern Cross.
That speech 'One mob under the Southern Cross' particularly enlivened the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group. They saw that the speech signalled his priorities as a commissioner, and his words touched many which I wanted to quote today. He said:
Relationships are built on understanding, dialogue, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust and reciprocated affection.
Relationships are destroyed by misunderstanding, intolerance, a lack of acceptance, a lack of dialogue, mistrust and a lack of respect.
It spoke not just to those at the National Press Club but to many people in our local area who were keen to see him and hear from him. My one regret is that, after badgering him and trying to, euphemistically, vigorously represent a desire for him to visit Chifley, I am not able to be present today for his address. But I am sure that he will leave a lasting impact, as he always does, and a lot of lessons that can be learned from his words.
I want to congratulate the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group for the work they do. For the past 14 years, they have every May organised a reconciliation walk in Mount Druitt. It continues to grow and they had a particularly successful one last year. I would like to acknowledge in this place the selfless work of a number of people. It is not just once a year; they meet every month and work quietly within the community, building bridges but also inspiring others. I want to acknowledge Marguerite Tobin, the president, and Pat Smith, the secretary, and they are joined by Michael Maxwell, Lyn Leerson, Kim Martin, Uncle Greg Simms, Uncle Wes Marne and Holy Family at Emerton for the work they do in providing a platform and a base of support for the Mount Druitt reconciliation group and all the great work that they do.
The member for Murray indicated, and I was particularly happy that she made reference to the fact, that I too am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I sought to be on the committee, given that there are a lot of people in my neck of the woods whom I am keen to work with and advocate on behalf of. I was especially pleased that the committee took on the work of inquiring into Indigenous languages. I think that most people who have grown up where English is a second language recognise that a connection to one's mother tongue is important on so many levels, not the least of which is that it is the link between generations; it also forms a concrete bond with culture.
In large part this is not an esoteric exercise. This inquiry is important. People in the broader community want to engage in speaking English for a host of obvious reasons, but I think there has to be space within our education system to provide for people to be able to learn Indigenous languages, and in particular for the younger generations of Indigenous Australians to learn their mother tongue and be able to pass that on and transmit culture between generations. I certainly feel strongly about that. I look forward to government receiving the formal report of the committee's inquiry and taking tangible, concrete steps, because I think it is so vitally important in so many ways.
Again, it is an honour for me not only to participate in the debate but also to listen to contributions made by people who are setting such a great example for this parliament. As I said, I look forward to the outcome of a number of other important initiatives. As reflected on by the member for Scullin, and as I mentioned earlier in this contribution, we are all on the journey together and together we look forward to making some tangible and concrete improvements.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Microbrewery Refunds
Debate resumed on motion by Mr Oakeshott:
That the 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.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (18:28): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have always wanted to stand up in this place and call for more beer, and that is exactly what I am doing tonight. When my Twitter account became aware that this was coming before the House, I knew I was not alone. There are many people in Australia who also want to see some changes in support of the small beer makers of Australia. Whilst I am sure there are 101 jokes that can be made about a politician standing up in an Australian parliament to do this, when you look at the detail you can see there is enormous inequity being faced by small beer makers. I would hope that this parliament in all seriousness and in detail can consider making some changes in support of small business generally but also in support of Australian small brewers in particular. The origin of this motion can be found in the very different circumstances of one small business in my hometown of Port Macquarie compared to one big business that recently got sold internationally. The aptly named The Little Brewing Co. operates in Port Macquarie's industrial area. It is an award winning family business producing craft beers of distinction. In the lead-up to last year's October national tax forum, Kylie Little, one of the co-owners, announced that she was sick and tired of being a tax collector first and a brewer second.
Unlike small wineries, small brewers do not get a significant rebate of the excise on sales they must collect. They only get $10,000 back, which I think was introduced in 2000 during the Howard years and was at the time trying to recognise some of the inequities faced by small brewers trying to get off the ground. The excise currently, though, is holding back this business and other businesses like them. It is keeping them from growing and potentially employing new workers.
In the lead-up to last year's national tax forum as well, by comparison, the foreign-owned SABMiller announced its purchase of Fosters for more than $10 billion. So an era of big Australian breweries is all but ended with that announcement. There are one or two that you could still argue the case might be around, but really the majority now of the large former Australian owned breweries have gone and the Australian owned beer market is the small beer market in Australia. Therefore, I would hope in policy we can consider the inequities that we place before small beer makers as compared to their multinational cousins.
In 2000 the Howard government introduced the microbrewery refund to nurture the development of small craft breweries by rebating beer excise of up to $10,000 to brewers of less than 30,000 litres of beer a year. These levels have not moved in 12 years. The Australian Association of Microbrewers has campaigned for the rebate to be lifted to $500,000 to match the tax rebate available to small winemakers. A 2007 study suggested this reform could in fact increase government revenue by removing a major barrier to microbrewery growth. It is understood that more than half of Australia's microbrewers are regionally located and many are major tourist attractions, very similar to wineries.
Alcohol tax was off the agenda at the national tax forum, wrongly in my opinion. That is why I have brought this motion before this House. The major parties in the Senate have previously rejected a similar motion to this. However, that motion was highly prescriptive, containing a definitive change to the rebate threshold to 300,000 litres. So, in the interests of giving the major parties and every member of parliament room to move, this is simply a call for the rebate to be significantly lifted and, hopefully, in considerations leading up to this year's budget or in any of the considerations from the Treasurer and the executive, that lift of the rebate can occur. I trust that the merit of supporting small, often regional, Australian businesses against dominant foreign-owned competitors will compel all members of this chamber and the major parties and the executive to support this motion and to get to work on developing fairer tax arrangements for microbreweries in Australia.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (18:33): I rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the member for Lyne. Microbreweries are an important niche in Australia. We have a brewery in Townsville. It is more of a boutique brewery. A brewer and a worker in a brewery cost the same whether they are working for Lion Nathan, SABMiller or the Townsville Brewery. The production costs are extraordinarily outclassed. While Lion Nathan will do 100 million litres of beer per year, Townsville Brewery will do about 200,000. So the economy of scale and the cost per unit production is just so much. The Townsville Brewery, run by Peter Summers, is trying to go from being a quaint little tourist attraction and supplying local restaurants and a couple of niche hotels to also supplying bottle shops, to take that next step. It is a major punt by anyone trying to get into small business at the best of times, but getting into something that is so dominated by the giants of beer in Queensland is even harder. The member for Lyne said 'No beer jokes please,' but up there we call VB 'green death'—it is outlawed; it is visitors' beer; it is very bad. We are the home of XXXX Bitter, the world's greatest beer. I will not do the Wally Lewis ad.
My brewery in Townsville wants to provide a quality product. Their products include Ned's Red, Townsville Bitter, Belgian Blonde, Lager Lout, Digger's Golden Ale and Bandido Loco. They do the full gamut of beers. They are trying to not only provide a bit of local interest but develop a business. Increasing the excise return or increasing tax benefits to brewers, as wineries receive, would play a significant part in them being able to compete and take that next step. Whilst I appreciate the rebate on 30,000 litres, at 200,000 litres or even a million litres it would still only be one per cent of what a major brewer would be putting out in the market. On a scale of one to 10 of how it is going to hurt the economy, we are not talking big bickies.
Whilst I have the floor, I would like to say a couple things. While the government has done nothing to help microbreweries in the last four years, changes like those outlined in the motion would have a significant and positive impact on breweries like my brewery in Townsville. It is the difference between being able to sell their beer locally to restaurants and something more. The Townsville brewery is in the process of expanding their brewing capacity. Peter Summers has recently come to me with some red tape issues and red tape is the killer of all business. In this instance, to take that next step he has to install a bottling facility. It is Chinese made and required a Chinese engineer to come and install it. The absurd bureaucracy that is in place at the moment on immigration left the brewery floundering with painful production losses. They had to outlay the cash to buy the thing and bring it in here but they simply could not access staff to come into the country to put the thing together and get it to work. At every turn we say we are in favour of small business, and at every turn we say we are trying to get small businesses its just desserts, but at every turn we put up another hurdle in front of small business. The people in small business at the moment are saying they are tax collectors first. They are working in their business, not on their business. The problem was eventually solved, but not before a lot of toing and froing and a lot of lost capacity.
I support the member for Lyne on this issue and I believe that what we are trying to do in Australia is create a finer art of what beer actually is. We are now an international beer drinking nation. It is not that you are stuck with one brand for life. I do not mind South Australian beer. I love Tasmanian beer. New South Wales and Victorian beers still leave me a bit cold. Queensland beer is still the best in the world. We should be doing everything we can to support these industries because they do bring so much to regional communities.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (18:38): I support this motion on microbrewing in Australia that has been brought before the House by the honourable member for Lyne. I moved a similar motion on this issue on 16 March 2009. This issue has not gone away. It is still here and it is still going on. The member for Herbert has just outlined the concerns within his electorate. I have five microbreweries in my electorate of Lyons. If we are to promote innovation in Australia, as the other two members have spoken about, we need to allow microbrewers to compete on an equal footing with boutique wineries, which are their competition. It is not really the big brewers—Boag's or Cascade in Tasmania—that the microbrewers are competing with. It is really about the people who drink with their lifestyle.
Microbrewers are suffering disadvantage because they pay considerably more tax than equivalent small wineries within the same region or within other regions. I do not believe they are asking for special treatment; they are just asking for equal treatment. I do not believe they are in the same argument as alcopops or anything like that, where it involves a bulk-buying exercise and drinking lots of alcohol, which causes the problems that we see within our electorates and especially around the major cities. It is an issue that has to be dealt with, as is bulk buying and advertising aimed at the young.
The main concern for microbrewers is the complexities and inequities of the tax system in relation to alcoholic beverages. I remember looking at this when I first moved a motion a few years ago. Excise taxes go back a long way, when you start thinking about Scotland and the whiskies. But it is a major issue for rural and regional Australia. They are major employers. They employ people and bring people into our area. In my state we get a cheese factory, a microbrewery and a small winery, which can turn around a region in good time. I am very concerned and we need to act on this.
There are seven microbreweries in Tasmania, five in my electorate. They value-add to farm produce. Some of them are primary producers, producing more than just beer. They produce on-farm stuff and value-add. I went to a microbrewery not long ago and saw the barley growing on the other side of the hill. It is a pretty special thing to be able to grow the barley near the brewery and bring it down and malt it and make the beer. They also grew beef and other produce there.
Tourism is coming along. A meadery is being built and there is also a hop garden. The old hops are part of the tourism opportunities around a microbrewery. So there are very productive and innovative projects adding to the economy in Tasmania, as we have heard from members from other parts of our country. We need to build on this. The government have not been backward. I understand that the government have assisted and they are very sympathetic to the arguments being put forward. I understand there has been some reform in the small business sector here. They used to have to pay excise within seven days, but they can now get it out to 21 days or 51 days. That is a plus. We are also broadly delivering value tax relief to about 2.7 million Australian small businesses. There is also the issue of the mining tax, which will give opportunities for small business to write down assets of $6,500. (Time expired)
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (18:43): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. Microbreweries are unique and important businesses in Australia. They are very valuable to our economic growth. These breweries also provide significant job opportunities across Australia, both directly and indirectly: directly through production, sales, marketing and administration and, indirectly, they play a role through the tourism industry by attracting business to their brewing facilities through tours and taste testing.
Microbrewers are often referred to as craft brewers. They produce a fairly limited amount of beer—around 30,000 litres per year, although that is not a hard and fast definition. From a consumer perspective, they are known for their uniqueness in taste and marketing and for their innovation. These craft brewers are the classic Australian manufacturers, making local products for a local market, although of course the export market remains a viable option as always. Within my electorate of McPherson, on the Gold Coast, I am fortunate enough to have a microbrewery, which supports our local economy and helps contribute to a great niche industry throughout Australia. The microbrewery is of course the Burleigh Brewing Co. It is one of the leading microbreweries in Queensland and is the Gold Coast's only craft brewery. Burleigh Brewing Co. combines tradition and innovation in brewing a variety of beers. I must make special note of one of their gold-medal-winning beers, known as My Wife's Bitter—it deserves special mention just for its name.
In 2006 the Burleigh Brewing Co. was launched by local husband-and-wife team Brennan and Peta Fielding. Brennan is the brew master at Burleigh Brewing Co. and provides one of the vital ingredients to their success. He has over 20 years experience, including time as an international judge. It is a tribute to this local business that its beers have won so many awards, including four world championship gold medals for four different beers in its line-up, which is a fantastic achievement. It is great to see a local manufacturer recognised for its achievements. This local business brand has been described as a cross between 'monk-like tradition', in deference to the European monks who brewed many beers, and 'cool surfing living', so it is very Gold Coast unique.
The Gold Coast is of course filled with manufacturers and businesses which epitomise the ambition and success that we applaud in Australian small businesses. As a local brewery, the Burleigh Brewing Co. uses all Australian made packaging and employs 12 locals in its facility at Burleigh. I have had the opportunity to visit this facility on a number of occasions and it is most impressive. I have spoken to them and to other brewers and have really spent a lot of time trying to work through with them what the issues for their businesses are. I will speak to some of those very briefly. According to the company's own figures, beer excise now represents approximately $12 to $15 per carton of their craft beer. Based on these figures, and given the downward price pressure on the Australian beer market and the rate of excise growth over the last couple of decades, that represents about 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the company's revenue. That is a significant hit to them. The excise is payable by the brewer the minute that the beer leaves the brewery and well before the brewery has been paid for its beer. An excise report has to be prepared and paid every single week, which is a huge administrative and cash flow burden to these smaller breweries.
From the customer side, the Australian brewing market is now dominated by two major chains: Coles and Woolworths. For small suppliers in the markets this has a couple of significant effects. There is very little price elasticity for the brewers to raise their wholesale price at the same rate that the beer excise increases, because the chains are able and in a good position to put downward pressure on prices. There is no room for the smaller suppliers to negotiate terms of trade, with 90 days being the norm. This is a big issue for the microbreweries and is one that I have been delighted to speak on tonight.
Debate adjourned.
Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Children
Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Rishworth:
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.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (18:49): I am pleased to rise to move this motion, because the increasing sexualisation of our children is a trend that concerns me greatly, as it does you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke. I have raised this issue publicly before, both in national debates and in this House, and I have received extensive support from people in the Australian community who share my deep concern about this important issue. One mother from Brisbane, Bridgette, was among many parents and teachers who contacted me to express their support for action on this matter. In expressing her concern about driving past inappropriate billboard advertising with her children in the car, Bridgette said, 'I feel powerless to control these kinds of images.' It was a common theme in the correspondence I received on this matter. While many parents want to be the ones who control their children's exposure to adult content, they feel it is almost impossible to do so. While I understand that this is a complex and difficult issue to address, I believe it is high time that we as a society start to take stock of these significant concerns and work together as a group to ensure that our children can grow and develop in a positive and healthy way.
The motion before us today acknowledges the findings of the Letting children be children: the report of an independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood commissioned by the government of the United Kingdom and released in June last year. This review draws on evidence collected from the survey of a sample group of 1,198 parents as part of a wider evidence-gathering process. It revealed significant public concern about the sexualisation of young girls and boys through the media and the commercial world.
The American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls defines the process of sexualisation as one where a person's value comes only from his or her sexual appeal to the exclusion of all other characteristics; a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy; a person is sexually objectified or sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person. The Letting children be children review found that children are growing up against the backdrop of a culture that is increasingly commercialised and sexualised.
The evidence pointed to widespread public concern in the United Kingdom about children's almost constant exposure to sexualised imagery through billboards, magazines, pre-watershed television programs containing adult themes, music videos depicting sexually explicit dance routines or provocative lyrics, and adult material available on demand through the internet and through the commercial world in the form of advertising and marketing. Images of this kind convey to children a clear message that suggests that women and girls are nothing more than sexual objects.
The report found that many parents felt that these images were becoming increasingly sexualised and gendered and they expressed concern about the influence from exposure to these images on the development and attitudes of their children. As this motion states, the review also found that parents are very concerned about the clothing, services and products being specifically marketed to children, which often reinforce gender stereotypes and portray children as being more sexually mature than their age would suggest. Parents were particularly concerned about the sexualisation of clothes designed for young girls, listing items like padded bras, bikini swimwear, clothing made from fabrics like animal prints and black lace, high-heeled shoes and clothing incorporating suggestive slogans.
Lastly, the review noted that parents often feel their concerns are not taken into account and that little effort is made to assist parents to control what their children are exposed to, despite the fact that they feel they are in the best position to say what is or is not appropriate for their child. As I stated earlier, many parents want to take charge and limit their children's exposure to what they see as adult content but feel powerless to do so.
As stated in the motion, I believe, along with many Australian parents, that the sexualisation of children is a growing issue not just in the United Kingdom but also here, in Australia. A number of reports into this issue conducted by both the Australia Institute and the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications and the Arts found a high level of public concern about the premature advancement of the sexuality of children caused by their frequent exposure to highly sexualised images of adults as well as pressure to consume products designed to directly sexualise them.
The motion recognises that the sexualisation of children and, in particular, of girls has been associated with a wide range of negative consequences, including body image issues, eating disorders, low self-esteem and mental illness. We all know that viewing images that depict an unrealistic standard of beauty can make us all feel bad. I often feel bad when I open up a magazine and see unrealistic images of women. However, the important point is this: unlike adults, children have not yet developed the cognitive ability to objectively analyse these kinds of images, and so they are particularly vulnerable to this kind of content. While adults are able to determine whether something has been airbrushed or is unrealistic or a person has had their body altered, children are unable to do this.
The report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls presents a summary of the significant body of evidence linking exposure to highly sexualised content with a process of self-objectification, whereby young girls internalise the sexualising images of the culture in which they are developing and start to criticise their own physical selves for failing to conform—which is often impossible—with what is a narrow concept of attractiveness. The report notes that constant attention to one's physical appearance caused by self-objectification can often have a disruptive effect on performance in a range of areas, including schooling, because less time and energy is available for these other tasks. I saw some reports that showed that young girls were unable to attend to their school work because they were obsessing about their bodies.
The report highlights studies showing that young girls exposed to sexualised and gender stereotyped content in magazines and through television can experience low self-esteem and become extremely dissatisfied with and anxious about their bodies. These feelings of inadequacy can then lead to serious health concerns, such as disordered eating.
In addition, research shows that the sexualisation and objectification of girls in society can have significant adverse effects on the attitudes that boys have and on the ways that they perceive and interact with females throughout their lives. Not only can this lead to men struggling to maintain intimate relationships because they have unrealistic expectations of women but it can also teach young boys negative messages about how it is appropriate to treat and interact with girls. Worst of all, it can cause young boys treat women purely as sexual objects. There is little doubt that the frequent exposure of young children to sexualised content leads to a whole range of negative consequences.
The motion before us today urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of this report. But it is also time for action. I believe that as a community, we in Australia, including industry and government, need to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood in Australia. We are living in an increasingly sexualised and commercial world. While adults have developed the skills to navigate this—not always successfully, but a lot of the time we are able to navigate, analyse and critically evaluate this material—children can be extremely vulnerable to these influences. As a result, these influences can affect how they develop and determine what kinds of adults they grow up to be.
I do not think that it is any one group's responsibility, and that has been the trouble—one group of people has not been responsible, because it is complex issue. But I believe that we need to raise awareness of this issue. We need to work together. Industry, government, parents and the community need to work together to ensure that as a society we deal effectively with this important issue so that future generations of Australian boys and girls can grow and develop in an environment that promotes positive and healthy messages. Unfortunately, I feel that we are going the other way.
I strongly believe that we need to prevent the increased sexualisation and commercialisation of our children. That is why I am moving this important motion. I notice that there are quite a few speakers on the list. I hope for their support on this motion. I commend the motion to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (18:59): I rise today to speak on the motion by the member for Kingston on the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, which regrettably is on the increase in Australian society. As a mother, I understand the difficulties that parents face as their children mature and they adjust to both the biological changes and the external pressures that they face to grow up a particular way. I am very committed to working with the community on this issue and to discovering how we can best approach it in the parliamentary context and I thank the member for her motion today. Speaking to the first part of the motion, I acknowledge the findings of the very extensive review in the United Kingdom led by Mr Reg Bailey, entitled Letting children being children. The review involved more than 1,000 parents, who participated in qualitative research, including surveys, interviews and focus groups. It received more than 120 submissions from various organisational and business stakeholders and serves as an important reassessment of an issue that not only affects the UK but should also concern parents throughout Australia. It is a very worrying issue for parents, who want the best for their children and will do everything that they can to ensure that they grow up in a healthy and happy environment.
Sadly, the increasing prevalence of sexualised images and products can be noticed every day when simply walking around clothes shops, with sexualised underwear and swimwear aimed at young girls. One need only open a girls magazine to see 'keep slim' tips and dating advice for 10-year-old girls. We know that the risks of this increasing commercialisation include but are not limited to mental health effects, body image issues, eating disorders and low self-esteem, as this motion suggests. For example, according to the Eating Disorders Foundation of Victoria, anorexia nervosa is the third most common chronic illness for adolescent girls after obesity and asthma, and the incidence of this disease has increased over the last two decades. These consequences for the future generations of Australia are of grave concern.
As the review notes, there are two approaches that can be taken when considering the pressures for children to grow up too quickly. The first is restricting the knowledge available to our children so that they are able to remain completely innocent and naive until they become adults. But as parents we must deal with the world as we find it. The second approach is to have a more open dialogue to provide the necessary tools to children so that they can understand what is happening in the world around them as they mature. It is reasonable to suggest that the latter, balanced approach is the better option.
While we want our children to stay innocent by exposing them as little as possible to age-inappropriate issues, we must accept the reality that the increasing instances of commercialisation and sexualisation in the community are affecting the development of children. We have to accept that it is an issue for which we must devise appropriate solutions and which requires constant dialogue in the community. As point (2) of today's motion notes, the thrust of the recommendations in the review is directed at industry and regulators, with government monitoring progress and legislating to protect children if necessary. One particular comment in the response of the education minister to the UK review stuck out for me. Ms Sarah Teather said that it is not enough for businesses to simply comply with the relevant regulatory systems which were established to protect children. Parents expect them to do their best for children, not simply stick to the rules.
As such, as we have seen in the obesity debate, the question is whether it is incumbent upon the government to step in and impose more regulation such as advertising standards on businesses when they are directly advertising to children. This is an important question because, while it would be impossible for a government to stop sexualisation of children completely, we must canvass the options that an Australian government can take to address this issue.
In Australia, the parliament in recent years has undertaken two inquiries: one on billboard and other outdoor advertising in the House of Representatives in 2011 and more specifically one on the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media in the Senate in 2008. The 2008 inquiry report mirrored the UK review's concern about the inappropriate sexualisation and noted that there is an onus on broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, retailers and manufacturers to respond to growing community concerns. The report also made 13 recommendations to the government.
But what was the Labor government's response? The report was published in June 2008. The government did not bother to respond until more than a year later, in July 2009. When they finally decided to read this report on an issue that is very important to the future of Australian families, what action did they take? Essentially, they did nothing. They admitted that there is a problem. They noted the recommendations. In the 2½ years since then, this government has done nothing to address this growing problem.
In Australia, we have systems in place through which these concerns can be raised. For example, the Advertising Standards Board covers complaints regarding both television and billboard advertisements and specific complaints about inappropriately targeted merchandise. More generally, the Kids Free 2B Kids websiteis a very useful resource for parents to help reverse the trend of sexualisation. Without a doubt, this issue is very complicated and solutions to the problem are not always easily identifiable. As such, I would welcome proposals as to how we can best adapt our regulatory system in the future.
One of the ongoing manifestations of the sexualisation of children about which parents in Ryan have spoken to me is a new phenomenon known as sexting, which involves the transmission or publication of sexualised words, images or video via phones, email, the internet or other media. They are also concerned about how this relates to the monitoring of their children's internet use, an area where the rules are constantly changing because there are always new virtual interactions and other social media becoming available.
I want to pay tribute to Mr Brett Lee, an internet safety expert at INESS, Internet Education and Safety Services. Mr Lee, who worked for more than 20 years as a detective for the Queensland police in the field of child exploitation, now gives internet safety and cyberbullying presentations to schools, the community and organisations. I would like to place on record my appreciation for his invaluable contribution to our families and the particular advice he has given to church groups, schools and my electorate generally about how to develop tools for families. One parent told me that, in trying to understand or deal with the sexualisation of their children or monitor their online activity, they are sometimes tempted to put it in the too-hard basket. It is the difficulty in understanding what is going on or where to start that makes them feel helpless. It is easier to just take away their mobile phone or ban the use of computers, even though the parents acknowledge that these are essentially compulsory resources for children today. Fortunately, through the resources of organisations like INESS, parents have been helped to unravel the online world, including at Pullenvale State School, Nudgee Junior College and St Peter's Lutheran College.
As an expert in the field, Mr Lee has remarked that the most important approach we can take is an individual and community based approach and that education for parents and students is the key. From a technical point of view, given the unimaginable scale of the internet or so-called cyber network, it would be impossible to devise a top-down approach that could be applicable to the varying circumstances that families encounter. It is at the home and school level that the community can come together to devise appropriate solutions. Mr Lee encourages parents and their children to have an open dialogue about not only their interaction with other students but also what they see on television and the internet.
Ensuring parents have enough support to help their children is certainly something that the coalition has always made a priority. The Howard government provided free computer based content filters for parents and, at the 2010 election, committed to spending an extra $60 million to develop such technology. It is with this approach that the federal government and indeed the education departments in each state have an opportunity to ensure that adequate resources are provided. Ultimately the family is the fundamental base to work through this issue. While governments can provide assistance, they also need to respect the mixture of solutions present within the community.
What is required on this issue is a truly consultative approach between parents, schools, the community, industry and government. I believe government should consider how this interaction might be facilitated in the school context with a view to assisting parents and children to find their way through what is a challenging, difficult and potentially dangerous area. Never before has so much unregulated material been so easily available to our children—material that promotes sexualisation at a young age and, at worst, material that can lead them into real and serious danger. I would certainly welcome ongoing monitoring of progress in this regard and legislating to protect children, if necessary, in the Australian context.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (19:07): I am really pleased to stand in the chamber this evening to support the motion by my colleague the member for Kingston. One of the things I have seen since I commenced my teaching career 25 years ago, and certainly as a mother of two young girls who are now aged 20 and 18, is a real shift in the way young girls are portrayed in the media and a shift in the way they are encouraged to represent themselves in public. I think we can see, even from school uniforms at a very early age, a clear contrast between the sexualisation that is happening for girls and for boys. Girls uniforms are getting shorter and shorter and shorter. A simple code might be that the girls' uniforms must be at least as long as the boys' shorts. We might have an attempt at a bit of equity there in terms of a little more discreet exposure.
These sorts of pressures that girls are under in all sorts of contexts, including in the school context in how they wear their uniforms, is being informed by those very powerful visual images of what we see on the newsstands as we walk by, what is increasingly coming before us through the media and in particular the images that flash across websites. I would like to talk a little bit about the phenomenon of Facebook and the cybercommunities it creates. The reality is that, more and more, technology provides us with the opportunity to use cameras. I have to say that I was astounded, while on holidays with my young niece, by how many photographs she took of herself for Facebook and how quickly she attempted to upload them. She in fact used my own daughter's phone to take some photographs of herself. A bit of a contest arose out of that, because I think there was about a $3 fee each time to send a photo to her Facebook, which was different from the plan that she was on. So, consequently, the whole issue of taking photos of oneself—the kinds of images that you publish of yourself, where you might choose to publish them and the long-term implications—was something we discussed this very summer. Therein lies one of the recommendations that the member for Kingston has put forward here:
… urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of the Letting the Children be Childrenreport and to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood …
On that issue, I really do want to speak about the importance of the industry coming to some sort of understanding of their responsibility as important corporate and social citizens. Businesses do not exist outside and beyond the ethical practices; businesses sit within communities and they rely on communities to succeed. We need an ethical response to what we can see is an increase in eating disorders, an increase in challenges to a sense of body image, increases in students' and young people's sense of identity, at a particular time they are growing in their understanding of sexualisation. These are pressures that should not be brought to bear on young people unnecessarily. Some businesses are very much responsible for pushing the envelope way too far.
In terms of the community, I do recall that several years ago, when I was heading over a beautiful drive that we have on the Central Coast, the Ridgeway, which takes me from the seat of Robertson over into the seat of Dobell to the university, I was caught behind a bus and on the back of the bus was an image of a four-year-old girl in a very short dress, knee-high stockings and extreme amounts of make-up. This was something that really alarmed me. It was even more alarming when I contrasted the image of this young girl with the young boy who was her play partner in the picture. He looked very free, very comfortable, hardly made-up at all, in a regular pair of play shorts. When we are starting to project images such as that one on the back of buses, moving around our communities, we are really starting to have a massive impact on the kids who are sitting behind those images on the buses and on the whole community who see them. There is no way we can get away from these really enlarged public images. But when we see that as a community I think this report reminds us of the damaging impact.
Then we have to think about our responsibilities as active citizens, in terms of putting out our response to those people who are advertising. On that day I did feel a little empowered. I did take the opportunity to ring the advertiser and put to them my concern about the images that I saw before me. They contacted the provider of the service that created the ad and they were actually happy to take my feedback. Perhaps there is something to be learnt from that. I was certainly satisfied with their response, and I did not see any more ads of that nature for that company. There is perhaps a laxity in the community in terms of using our voices in ways that we can. It took only a couple of phone calls. I was actually able to raise my concerns and make my point, and I was heard quite tolerantly on the other end of the phone. If more of us look around and see this as a problem—particularly if the young, who are the most subjected to it, begin to sense that they have a voice and can ask for things to be different—then we have not only improved some outcomes in terms of the way they may be portrayed and sexualised but we also have a chance to communicate to them that, as a citizen, you have a right to speak to businesses, to speak to government and to be a voice in your own community for improving things for yourself, for your peers, for your family, for your friends and for your community in general. I think the Letting children be children report is another important document that adds weight to this whole field of research that has been undertaken in the last several years. The American Psychological Association and also Australian agencies, psychologists and people who write in that field have been writing about this issue for some time. We can no longer continue to just let these reports be written and have no response. We need a collective and informed response.
I also want to put on the record my recognition of some of the incredible heavy lifting that has been undertaken by Melinda Tankard Reist to bring this debate to the public. She has been writing on this issue for some years. In the last little while she has really increased the profile of the issue in the mainstream media. This is no longer an issue that is sitting around on the edges of conversation; it is coming right to the heart of our talk about images and the mental health aspects of what images construct, convey and destroy in our own community at this time. Congratulations to Melinda Tankard Reist for her work in that area. I have been quite horrified to see some of the vilification that has been levelled at her for daring to have views on this matter and others and for putting them forward in the public space.
In terms of who should take the greatest responsibility, I have argued here this evening that young people really need to have a voice in this. They are the ones who are affected and their voice should be prominent. But we should never forget that there is a moral responsibility for those who have power—adults, businesses and governments—to take the lead in making sure that the environment for young people is safe. We are very good at thinking about physical safety and we have managed through all sorts of legislation to increasingly make life safe for young people. I recall reading with horror a newspaper article from 1910 or so where a child had been killed under a tram. The commentary in the media was that this is something you have to expect; this is the way our community is. There would be horror and outrage now because we have figured out we can engage in conversations and think about how we legislate and operate to make the world a physically safer place for young people.
In terms of images and the incredible sexualisation that is going on for young people, particularly women, we have the opportunity right now to take responsibility as the adults in the room, as the ones with power and agency, to make sure that we continue to talk about it. But the time really has come for us to do more structurally about making sure we make a psychologically safe place for young women and men to grow up in.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (19:18): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion again in conjunction with other members. Although I am the only male speaking on this, my claim to association with this very fine motion comes from being the father of two daughters, aged 13 and nine, who has the same concerns that all other fathers in this place have. I take my responsibilities as a parent very seriously. When you are out there and you start looking at what is on the magazine racks, particular magazines targeted at young females, and you look at some of the clothes that are around and some of the images that you can see, whether they are in music videos or in a range of other mediums, you can see there are great causes for concern out there. I read through this report and looked at the recommendations and the other points that were so clearly made. It is very easy to understand that the same issues that face the United Kingdom most certainly face Australia.
Very recently I was at a function in my electorate and a dance troupe came to entertain the crowd. There were three young ladies participating in this event. The eldest was 19, the next sister was probably around 15 or 16 and the youngest would have been anywhere from 10 to about 12 years old. They were outstanding singers and dancers. However, there were times when I guess I was struggling to watch the choreography because I felt somewhat uncomfortable with it. Certainly the amount of lycra in most of the costumes and the make-up were of note but some of the moves—in many ways, sexual moves—that were part of this dance or choreography made me feel uncomfortable. And some of the other people I was there with also said that they were somewhat uncomfortable.
So it is most definitely the case that the sexualisation of children does not just come through the mediums that we are used to discussing—through the magazines and the music videos. It does not just come from that; there are expectations that pervade other parts of society as well. Again, as a father of a couple of daughters, I am greatly concerned about this. I heard recently about the seven-year-old daughter of some people I know. I have seen her wearing lipstick and make-up and she is even apparently wearing a padded bra at seven years old. Again, these are concerning developments in our society. Whilst retail outlets like Kmart and Big W might choose these sorts of products, and they might be useful for helping the older kids—girls around puberty—fit in, I think that it is still somewhat disturbing that these sorts of products are being sold and come in the sizes for those who are well and truly prepubescent. That is another cause of some concern.
I think it is particularly girls who are facing these sorts of marketing issues and the contact through various mediums—the internet et cetera. Girls are certainly facing those sorts of problems and expectations upon them to be more sexual than they really should be before ages such as 16. It is a disturbing thing. But, at the same time, we should not neglect talking about boys and the impact that the increasing marketing of sexual imagery has on boys as well. Internet pornography is a major problem, and I will talk about the internet soon. We know that children's minds are often fairly well hardwired at the outset. When they see imagery of pornography and hardcore pornography when they are young those images, unfortunately, are written hard onto their brains. That is not the sort of balanced view of the world that young children need or should have, and I think it can seriously affect the rest of their lives when they have that sort of exposure.
That really brings me to the matter of the internet. I was talking to friends recently specifically about the internet, and I guess there is a feeling in the community that there is a greater problem with paedophiles and people who are interested in children for entirely the wrong reasons. There is a great deal being thought about at the moment as if this is a bigger problem. I think that the ability of people to access the internet is not helping in these lines. I think with the internet enabling people to access pornography and even child pornography with a degree of anonymity is helping to undermine our society. More people who might have been able to suppress their problems in the past can find access to these sort of images. Fortunately, I understand that the Federal Police is doing a fabulous job in trying to intercept people that have these sort of issues and that are trying to access that sort of pornography. I think that that is a very positive step forward.
With regard to the internet, obviously how they deal with that is a major problem. It has been mentioned before as part of this debate for the motion that the previous government provided free filters for parents. That is most definitely a positive thing that needs to occur; that always should be one of the first lines of defence with the internet. Parents have to accept the responsibility that, no matter whether Facebook says that children can only be 13 before they can have a Facebook page, there will always be a way they can get around it. It will always fall back to the fact that the parents have to know what is going on. Things like having passwords to get onto the internet and the computer being out in the family room are important things. This is one of the best ways of keeping our children as safe as possible.
I will also mention a little bit more about shop displays,. A couple of years ago I had a bit of a war with a local retailers not far from my office. They thought it was fine to display provocative t-shirts on a t-shirt rack at about child height. In particular, there were t-shirts with stick figures in various forms of sexual activity. I asked them, quite nicely, 'I think maybe you should put that back inside the shop.' They said, 'No, we don't think there is a problem.' Then I wrote to them and said similar things. Again, I got rebuffed on that one. The final thing that did get them to pay attention was when I provided them with a photo of a little boy walking along holding his mother's arm and looking straight at that t-shirt. Faced with that photograph, they finally fixed it up—they moved the t-shirts inside, higher up and to a little more obscure place. Sometimes you have just got to get out there and have a go at these people and try to do something about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have clearly run out of time, but I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I commend all members involved for participating.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (19:28): I am very pleased this evening to be able to speak on this resolution as proposed by the Member for Kingston, who I know has had a considerable and certainly ongoing interest in issues around the welfare of children, particularly in relation to issues around negative body image and the sexualisation of children. All of that is derived in the main from her previous profession as a psychologist. I commend her on her endeavours this evening.
I am particularly interested in two aspects of the resolution that is before us. The first relates to children and the considerable pressures that are on them to be consumers and the issues associated with negative body image, eating disorders and mental ill health that are referred to in the member for Kingston's resolution. The issue of consumerism amongst children is of particular concern to me, in part because I think it perpetuates a rift between the haves and have-nots. It creates an additional pressure in families in relation to their material wealth. In addition, I believe it fosters a particular degree of self-interest that is quite unhealthy amongst children. I think it really goes to perpetuating the idea of 'me' and not 'we' within society. So it is of particular concern to me. I know that, according to the Queensland commission for children and young people in some of its research around this issue of consumerism amongst children, the social research company AustraliaSCAN has estimated that the 'tween' market—which I believe covers seven- to 13-year-olds—is believed to be worth more than $10 billion in Australia alone. That is an extraordinary figure. Of course we know that children will have a limited capacity to actually purchase products and services, but they can certainly act as consumers nonetheless by asking parents or other adults to purchase products for them. For instance, the Australian Psychological Society's 2000 publication Media representations and responsibilities notes that a British study has estimated that 85 per cent of a sample of four- to 13-year-olds surveyed acknowledged that they had asked their parents to buy advertised products, and 66 per cent claimed that parents had met that request. The report goes on to state that:
… it is clear that the interests of children are targeted and, thereby, exploited by advertisers. Surveys of the content of advertising directed to children consistently demonstrate that it is dominated by advertisements for foods high in sugar, fat and salt and by advertisements for toys.
It makes conclusions about the influence of television advertising, which is certainly, in its view, significant in affecting the attitudes and consumption behaviour of children and, necessarily, their families. It particularly mentions that younger children may be more vulnerable than older children to being unable to differentiate between advertising and program content, which is particularly worrying.
I know that this government has made very significant investments in education, particularly early childhood education, to give young children the best opportunities for learning, development and resilience. It is particularly important that we set these foundations for better education amongst young children, and children who are heading into teenage years.
I particularly note, and will be interested to hear the results of, a conference being hosted by Macquarie University in March this year which will focus on what it calls 'The corporate takeover of childhood—who's paying the price?' I know that that will attract a range of eminent people focused on their concerns about the commercialisation of children.
The second issue that I mentioned at the outset that was of concern to me was the issue of negative body image, eating disorders and low self-esteem that is raised in this motion. In having a look at the motion this evening I referred to an article that was in the Biologist in October 2010 titled, 'A source of thinspiration'. It makes reference to a study by members of the Harvard Medical School of the effects of the introduction of TV on body image and eating disorders in adolescent girls. In particular, it looks at the effects of eating disorders in Fiji and notes that, in that society, where television had not been introduced for some time, the impact of television ultimately appears especially profound and that Western media imagery may have a profoundly negative impact on body image and disordered eating attitudes and behaviours, even in traditional societies in which eating disorders have been thought to be rare. My time is at an end, I am afraid, and I will conclude there.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (19:33): I am very happy to rise and speak on this motion that has been brought forward by the member for Kingston and commend all those who have participated in this debate tonight and will participate over the next couple of speeches. This motion is very important because it highlights a critical issue that concerns many parents and should concern us as a society: the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. When we think of our nation's most precious asset, some people may be inclined to talk about our mineral assets. My view, of course, is that our most precious assets are our children, and we need to make sure that we do all that we can for them. We have a responsibility to care for them, educate them, protect them from harm and give them an opportunity to flourish and be all that they can be.
Tonight I particularly want to focus on protecting children from harm. There can be no question that parents ultimately have the responsibility for raising their own children. That is not a task that can be taken on by anyone else. It is not a task to be delegated to teachers, to church leaders or to other members of the community. But increasingly parents are concerned about the adult content to which their children are exposed in public places. What do I mean by that? I am talking about billboards; advertising in magazines; the highly sexualised images of young adults on television; and of course the new technologies, the fact that so many children these days are the owners of iPhones and iPads and that virtually all of them are very actively involved on social networking sites such as Facebook.
I will give one example that is personal to me, because it involves my sister. It is to do with the billboard ad that she had a number of concerns with. My sister is seven years younger than me and was a young adult at the time she made the complaint to the Advertising Standards Bureau. She complained about a billboard that depicted a woman whose head was cut off, whose legs and buttocks were emphasised and who was leaning forward in a very sexually provocative way into a young man. It had a slogan that said something like, 'Come along for the ride.' Of course, it was advertising something completely unrelated; it was advertising shoes. My sister objected to this image, and brought it to the attention of the Advertising Standards Bureau. The response that she got back was highly unsatisfactory. The response suggested that perhaps it was she who had the problem with this particular image and that she should not be too concerned. The point I am making here is that I think the public standards that we set for these sorts of images should be incredibly high, because these images are viewed by young adults and by children. They have an impact, particularly on young women, who can potentially start to view themselves simply as sexual objects. They have a very unhealthy impact on young men as well, who also, with these sorts of images constantly bombarding them, can start to view women in this light. We need to respect our young women and men. We need to set significant standards. I most certainly would like to see much more stringent standards in the advertising world, such that community standards other than simple self-regulation are applied.
Finally, I would like to highlight a coalition initiative. We are very concerned about cybersecurity and social networking and their impact on children. We have recently formed a review of online safety for children with a task force headed by my good friend and colleague Paul Fletcher. I look forward to being able to report back to the House on this.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (19:38): I congratulate the member for Kingston on bringing this important motion to the House. From the previous contribution I heard I can see that both sides of politics are embracing this issue and are looking at the impact that sexualisation and commercialisation have on children.
I do not think that I am saying anything that is new to anyone when I say that it tends to be young girls who are targeted by this commercialisation and sexualisation. I agree wholeheartedly with what the member for Higgins said: I do not think that self-regulation is working. The example that she gave of the impact on her sister of that advertisement is a similar response that many people have to that type of advertising. But I think this issue goes a little further than just reacting to the advertising. It goes a little bit further than the impact that this commercialisation and sexualisation has on young people and the community as a whole. Through the constant portrayal of this as the norm we come to accept it; it is seen as being something that is not unusual. We are tacitly promoting sexual behaviour in very young children.
There has been an inquiry here in Australia in the Senate. I believe that one of the recommendations from that inquiry was that the onus should be on broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, retailers and manufacturers to take into account these community concerns about the sexualisation of young people.
There has been a lot of research done into this issue. The UK has taken a lead on this issue in the report that they have brought down. Following that report the Prime Minister, David Cameron, argued that what should happen was that parents should have single websites. It recommended that there should be an age restriction on music videos and buying sexually explicit videos, that there should be screening guides for broadcasters and that it should be made easier for parents to block age restricted material.
The report recommended that retailers should offer age-appropriate clothing for children. I think that that is one aspect that is very important. Young girls—and boys, for that matter—should be able to dress as children. They should be able to be children and enjoy the activities of childhood rather than strive to portray themselves as younger versions of adults. They should not be portrayed in sexual contexts.
I think that the long-term impacts for our society will be considerable. Child development authorities, child psychologists and children's advocate groups are very strong in their criticism of the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. It is a widely-known fact that sexualisation harms children. It is about body image concerns, eating disorders, gender stereotypes and premature sexualisation. It erases the lines between who is and who is not sexually mature. As well, it may increase the risk of childhood sexual abuse.
This is a very important issue. Young people are very concerned with their body image. The commercialisation and sexualisation of children is about portraying negative body images. I wholeheartedly support the motion that has been put before this parliament by the member for Kingston and I hope all other contributors to this debate can see the worthiness of the motion.
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (19:43): I rise to support the motion and raise a couple of issues of concern to me. Particularly as a mother of two young preschool girls and a step-mother of two teenage girls, I see that what we have in our society is a very harmful toxin. It is not tangible but it is like a thousand cuts to very small children—that is, the overt sexual advertising out there on the wallpaper of our society.
The debate at times is couched in very superficial terms. It is about the right of advertisers to sell in the easiest way, which is to sell using sex, and the right of one adult not to be offended by it. This is not about that; this is about our responsibility as adults, as legislators and as parents to look at the very real harm—the physical emotional and mental harm that is well documented—that can result from the premature sexualisation of children. That is the toxin. If there were a physical toxin harming our children, there would be people marching in the streets; there would be people knocking down the doors of their local members of parliament. But this toxin of early sexualisation of children is just as harmful. There is an increasing weight of research and evidence that shows that exposure to sexualised imagery can be linked to childhood anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and eating disorders. The threat of premature sexualisation includes exposure to STDs as children become sexually active at an even younger age. We know that young children cannot process these images and this information. They are children, and they are our responsibility.
It is no longer as easy as just switching off the television, because we are surrounded by it. You can take your child down the street on the way to school, driving them or walking them, and you will see these big billboards. You take them to the supermarket and at their eye level they can see highly sexualised images on magazines, or there are the near-pornographic clips playing at the local bowling alley. A child—for example, a six-year-old or a seven-year-old—does not possess the ability to recognise that the sexually explicit pose of the woman wearing next to nothing is not a representation of reality but an unfair female stereotype designed to sell a product. Children are not small adults, and we are sending messages. We are sending out messages—in my view, particularly to those who engage in the heinous crime of paedophilia. The more sexualisation is out there and the more children are sexualised in advertising, which is well documented, the more justification paedophiles seek for their behaviour.
I was very disappointed in a report by this parliament not that long ago, from a committee chaired by the member for Moreton, called Reclaiming public space. It squibbed on facing up to these facts.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mrs MIRABELLA: I spoke on that motion, and you were there and you heard me. It was a report that did not address the very serious issues. It is time we did something real. It is time we said to the Advertising Standards Board, 'Don't mock us.' Self-regulation does not work; we know that. If you have ignored the welfare of children just to make a quick, easy buck through advertising, perhaps it is time to tighten regulation on advertising. Perhaps it is time to discuss a statutory body with real powers, including issuing serious fines to offenders, because if all you get is a slap with a wet lettuce then you are going to continue taking the easy way out. We need to reclaim our public spaces in a very real way. They are the wallpaper around which our children grow up. Let us recognise the sexualisation of women and children as the toxin it is, and let us be adults and recognise our responsibility to protect the children of this country.
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (19:48): I want to thank the member for Kingston for proposing this motion. It gives members the opportunity to put on the record our concerns about the sexualisation and commercialisation of children and the pervasive influence of media and advertising that leaves so many parents feeling at best embattled but more often powerless against these forces. Members supporting this motion are reflecting a growing sense of unease in the community about the pressure on children to grow up too fast and the idea that childhood is just another demographic to be marketed to.
One of the reasons I wanted to speak in support of this motion is to give reassurance to parents out there that they are not alone in these concerns and in their desire to stand up for their children's right to grow up in their own time and in their own way. Too often parents are made to feel that they are somehow being prudish or out of touch with the modern world when they raise objections about things their children are being exposed to without being given the opportunity to exercise their judgment as parents. As a mother of an eight-year-old and a five-year-old, I know exactly how those parents feel. Raising my children according to the values their father and I think are important requires constant vigilance and a willingness to be the bad guys when necessary. We like to think this approach is buying us the time we think our kids need to develop sufficient cognitive and emotional capacity—to grow up, in other words—to apply some critical judgment to what they see and hear in the media and to build a sense of themselves independent of media images. All parents would feel the same way, but why do they have to feel so besieged while they do it? Why do they have to feel like they are fighting these forces within our society and having to shield their kids at a time when they should be expanding their world day by day and finding their place in it.
There have been terrible and dangerous times to be a child in our history and in many parts of the world even today. Surely, though, in the developed world we have the ability to create an environment that nurtures our children and that gives them the time and the tools they need to prepare them for adulthood rather than laying traps for them to have to negotiate while they take that journey. Of course, nothing can replace parental responsibility as the primary source of control over what children watch, listen to and buy, and that is a strong theme in the Letting children be children report.
The report also acknowledges the challenges of the wallpaper of modern life that has been referred to by other speakers in this debate—the images, products and electronic content that are all around us—that defies the ability and even denies the right of parents to exercise their control. This was illustrated by a column by Mia Freedman in last weekend's Sunday Mail. She described taking her children to a family restaurant only to have them glued to a TV screen showing a raunchy music video that she would never have shown them in her own home. Her standards and the boundaries she would have otherwise set for her children were completely irrelevant in that situation—and that is a situation that would be familiar to parents all over Australia.
I went to Mia Freedman's blog today to see what the reaction had been to her column. I want to share with the House that I think Mia Freedman's blog also demonstrates one way that parents can reclaim their rights to set boundaries, and that is by asserting their rights as consumers, because it is their money that gets spent on kids and by kids. In amongst the posts—and there were a lot of posts from parents supporting her column—was one from a company that packages film clips and sells them to places like restaurants and gyms. The company rep was very anxious to make it known that it has products specifically for a family market and that public venues can easily choose to purchase and play those. That a company was so quick to defend its product and reputation shows that parents are not as powerless as they might think.
I endorse the comments of other speakers and agree that governments should certainly act on recommendations like those in the Senate report from 2008 and the recent UK report to make it easier for people to make complaints about media content and to give those complaints more weight, to give them real teeth. But parents should also go straight for the jugular—go for the bottom line of companies marketing these products. Parents should take advantage of consumer campaigns and especially social network campaigns to stand up to those who would offend their children's right to be children. Companies and advertisers are seeking to exert their power in the marketplace and parents acting on behalf of their children can exert it right back at them.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (19:53): I would like to start by thanking the member for Kingston for bringing this motion to the House. Like her, my coalition colleagues and I are vehemently opposed to the sexualisation of children. We share the concerns raised in our community regarding the negative impact that sexualisation of children can have on their development, including the potential susceptibility of children to develop poor body image, eating disorders, depression and low self-esteem.
We believe that childhood is a time for children to learn, to play and to develop the social skills that are crucial to adult life. Kids should just enjoy being kids. I am sure everyone agrees with me that childhood is the foundation to adult development. It should be a time when kids spend time exploring ways of thinking, feeling and expressing themselves, without a barrage of external forces pressuring them too early into their adult world. I do not think I am alone in thinking that the blatant sexual portrayal of children in any form—regardless of whether it is in magazine articles, in advertisements, on billboards, in multimedia formats or via merchandise marketed to children—is inappropriate. Surely children are entitled to develop at their own pace, without additional pressures on their development from inappropriate marketing and advertising. At the last election, as part of the coalition's platform we made it clear that, in our view, the current classification system was broken. This position has not changed. A coalition government will build on the work of the 2008 Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment and review the current system. We believe that the classification system must take into account new technologies accessible by, and capable of delivering content to, children, young people and adults. It is imperative that we develop a comprehensive new framework not just limited to content but which looks at the platform that it is delivered on.
With this in mind, recently the coalition announced the formation of an online safety working group, an extremely important initiative that I am involved in which is aimed at helping to equip parents and carers with the tools to better protect children from the risks associated with the internet and social media. Recent figures estimate that a staggering 2.2 million Australian children actively engage online. There is a real concern that many parents and guardians are not equipped to deal with this challenge.
Today's children are the first generation of young people who will grow up with the internet and social media as an integral part of the way they live, learn and communicate. The modern online environment now includes interactive activities like social media sites, SMS messaging, Skype, apps and games, to name a few. The internet is no longer accessed just through the home PC. It is accessed through iPods, tablets, game consoles, smartphones and the developing smart TV technologies. It is more likely than not that children will have at least one if not two of these options to access the internet. We know that many children have been the victim of online bullying and that there is the issue of kids having access to sites that are inappropriate for them. In forming this working group the coalition is not seeking to repeat Labor's ham-fisted attempt to put a filter on the internet or to hinder the dynamic nature of the online environment. What we want to do is support and equip parents, guardians and teachers in their work of protecting our children and preparing them for adulthood.
We on this side of the House believe that the family unit is the core element of a strong society. There is no denying that the family is where children should learn values from their parents and guardians. We encourage parents and guardians to help their children navigate a happy and safe childhood before they begin to come to grips with the complexities of sexuality and adult life. It is important that parents and guardians shield their children from age inappropriate material whatever the source, including the internet, as much as they possibly can. There is no doubt that this is a difficult task, but it has to be done to ensure that our children are safe and secure. We want them to have the opportunity to be children for as long as they can. There is nothing more precious than our children. To summarise, I borrow the following from the late Whitney Houston's song Greatest Love of All:
I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
(Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Same-Sex Relationships
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Wilkie:
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.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:58): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion that has been brought to this House by the member for Denison, and I thank him for raising the matter. This morning, my local newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury, carried on its front page a story about two young couples in love. Both had something in common—that is, both couples were engaged to be married last year. I am very pleased to say that Trevor and Denise Gaskell did get married and that they have had a child together. The best man at their wedding was a man I met last weekend, a fellow by the name of Peter Bearman. Peter also got engaged last year to his partner, James Pollack. Trevor and Denise come from Port Kembla, in my electorate, and Peter and James live in Dapto. The thing that is different between Trevor and Denise on the one hand and Peter and James on the other is that the law permits Trevor and Denise to get married but prohibits, in this country at least, Peter and James being married. In every respect they are two ordinary couples making their way in life in the Illawarra.
Peter is a diesel mechanic and James is a university student. It is their fervent hope and the hope of their mother, whom I met last weekend, that one day they will be able to get married here in Australia. It is with that story in mind that I moved in the House today a private member's bill that would amend the Marriage Act 1961 to permit couples like Peter and James to get married here in Australia.
I think we in this country have moved beyond the years where gay and lesbian couples were thought of as outcasts who had to be ashamed of their sexual identity. Their sexual identity was thought by many to be sinful and something to be ashamed of. Australia has moved a long way over the last several decades. All the social stigma that attached to sexual identity has, quite thankfully, become a thing of the past. I say in this place today that it is time for our marriage laws to reflect the change that has occurred in society at large.
I said earlier today that I believe that God made us all equal but different, not differently equal. By this I mean that if a person's sexuality means they wish to marry somebody of their own sex then they should be able to join together, make a voluntary commitment to each other for life to the exclusion of all others and have that commitment granted the same status as my marriage when I married my wife 13 years ago. I understand that for many this concept may still be confronting. I have said on numerous occasions that it does nothing for the cause of marriage equality if we stand on a mountain and shout abuse or heckle or belittle those who still find this concept somewhat confronting or at odds with their belief about how we should order things. However, at the same time that we must understand that some people find it uncomfortable, we should not retreat from the fundamental belief that I hold, and that is the right to equality of treatment and the removal of discrimination in all vestiges of Australian law as a human right—something that we as legislators do not create.
We have an obligation to recognise and protect. That is why I am happy on the one hand to be supporting the motion being moved by the member for Denison to be proffering a private member's bill in the House today. It is why I am proud that the Australian Labor Party has changed its platform and policy in relation to this matter. Equally, I am also proud that our party has taken the view that this is a matter of conscience. I hope that that is the position adopted by all parties in this place, because I think in good conscience that the Australian people expect us to ensure that our laws reflect the change in views in society and that we are able to provide the same measure of equality to same-sex couples in their relationships as I enjoy as a straight male who decided 13 years ago to get married. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (20:03): The sentiments behind the push to exempt churches from having to perform same-sex marriages, if indeed they are legalised, may be welcomed by some, but it is clear from the global experience that any such sentiments legislated, codified or otherwise will not withstand the ongoing march of Christophobia that is occurring throughout the western world. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is supposed to codify religious liberty. It states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom …
Yet in Great Britain the situation is so intolerable for Christians that in recent years the Archbishop of York of the Church of England, the Right Reverend John Sentamu, was moved to say that there are those who argue that 'they operate in pursuit of policies based on the twin aims of diversity and equality', yet diversity apparently means 'every colour and creed except Christianity' and equality excludes anyone 'with a Christian belief in God'. It is no wonder he says that, when we see recent headlines such as 'Tory MP calls for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse gay couples'. That came from the gay media outlet PinkNews in September last year. It is about a Conservative MP who in August last year lobbied British Prime Minister David Cameron to compel churches to register civil partnerships, pointing to a precedent where Catholic adoption agencies were compelled to provide adoption services for same-sex couples.
In Canada, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal declared unconstitutional a proposed legislative amendment allowing Saskatchewan's marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. In the US just last week a New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, saying the Constitution allows some intrusion into religious freedom.
Outside of the marriage issue, we have seen Christian pastors locked up for speaking on the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to a month in prison for having offended homosexuals in a sermon. In Canada, the Liberal state government of Ontario has attacked the Catholic Church for failing to allow clubs for homosexual students in its schools. The courts are now ruling against the church and ordering that they provide them.
It may be news to the secularists, but church buildings are not where Christians check in and check out the practice of their beliefs. Christianity is a lived experience and Christians are called to remain true to their faith in all aspects of their lives. Despite the covenant on civil and political rights, nations throughout the West have effectively outlawed public observance of Christian belief in these respects. In November last year Dutch MPs voted to prevent Christian civil servants from refusing to conduct gay marriages. In 2004 Mitt Romney, then Governor of Massachusetts, ordered Christian justices of the peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or they would be fired.
In November last year it was reported that a Christian baker in Iowa who politely declined to provide a wedding cake for two lesbians will now face legal action. Last week the British Court of Appeal ruled that a Christian couple who owned a B&B in Cornwall and refused to allow a gay couple to share a bed in their establishment pay $5,700 in damages to the gay couple. Another Christian, a cafe owner in England, in September last year was warned by police to stop showing DVDs of the New Testament in his cafe, after a customer complained about its passages against homosexuality.
This 'Christophobia', this systemic denial of Christians' right to follow their conscience, is happening all around the world. It will happen here in Australia, too, unless laws remained steadfast on the issue of marriage. To some extent, it has already begun. The Australian Education Union, in their policy paper on GLBTI people, state that they will develop strategies to encounter homophobia at an institutional level, including in religious institutions, which they say are to be condemned for their discriminative attitudes and approaches. Presumably, these strategies will take place in classrooms and they will have Christian children being told that their church is to be condemned.
At the government level, the Attorney-General has released a discussion paper on the proposed federal anti-discrimination changes. That paper suggests that some exemptions be offered to religious organisations—except, I note, those connected with sexual orientation. Despite cleverly concocted exemptions that seek to dull Christian voters' concerns over same-sex marriage, if we redefine marriage nothing will stop the advance of the Christophobes. It is a march which in Australia is done to the beat of the Greens drum—and now many in the Labor Party.
Debate adjourned.
Gambling Reform
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Oakeshott:
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
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (20:08): This is an opportunity to thank those in this parliament who have pushed for substantial reform with regard to problem gambling to respond to two Productivity Commission reports over the last 11 years and also to put on the record some further work that, hopefully, the government can do along with some legislative reform that is expected shortly. The reason for putting this motion forward is that I hope the challenge of dealing with problem gambling as well as the issues of money laundering and transnational crime do not stop with the legislation before the House and all the debate that goes along with that. I hope as well that there is engagement with the states, where the fundamental problem of addiction lies—that is, the states are addicted and wedded to the revenue from electronic gaming machines and from the vast range of gaming and gambling options.
This motion is calling for a national cap to be agreed upon through a national partnership agreement or some equivalent. That should not, I hope, be too hard. Most if not all states now have a cap of some form. I would hope that through the Select Council on Gambling Reform a genuine discussion about turning that into a national cap could take place and could be the start of a long-term national reduction strategy underneath that cap. In the theme of other topics of last year, that fits in with the cap-and-trade model of long-term reductions in something that is a problem.
As well, a critical part of that will be breaking the link between state government revenues and gaming. On the back of the tax forum that occurred in October last year, a state tax working group has been formed. That is a bipartisan working group that includes the New South Wales Treasurer, Mike Baird, and the current Queensland Treasurer, Andrew Fraser. Of different political persuasions, they are working throughout this year to look at ways of harmonising state taxation and hopefully reducing some of those bad state taxes through negotiation with each other and with the Commonwealth. This is an opportunity, therefore, to feed into that process the topic of the moment, responding to the Productivity Commission and feeding in this issue of how to break the link between state revenue and gaming options. If that can be done—and I include in there not only electronic gaming machines but also online gaming, sports betting, the horses, the harnesses and the greyhounds—and if there can be a genuine conversation between the different jurisdictions, if a tax deal can be done that allows the states the capacity to raise revenue in other ways in a long-term strategy, that then allows a reduction in machines and achieves, I think, an important goal of therefore reducing problem gambling, about which most if not all members of parliament are concerned.
The Productivity Commission report that is the basis of the legislation about to appear before the parliament is an important one, but I hope that this House does not forget or reject the first Productivity Commission report from 1999, which really talked about proximity as being a core problem in the number of problem gamblers emerging in Australia. The fact that gaming machines were starting to turn up on every corner in New South Wales, for example—the decision to put poker machines into the pubs—really turbocharged problem gambling in Australia. So this question of proximity is very real as a cause of the problem but also an opportunity for us to consider in addressing the problem. If we can, over time, reduce the number of machines and reduce the number of sites where machines are, then we are reducing problem gambling as well.
I sincerely hope that the government, the executive and the parliament consider this motion and not only consider the legislation that is about to appear before the House but really push government to follow a COAG process as well. (Time expired)
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (20:13): I rise this evening to speak on the motion with respect to problem gambling and gambling reform. I must say that I have had a long and abiding interest in this for a number of reasons. I note that the member for Denison and the member for Lyne are both, of course, in the chamber this evening. There is one issue that I would like to touch upon as part of this broader discussion of gambling reform, that being the fact that the Independents have said on numerous occasions that they remain committed to the Labor Party on the basis that the Labor Party is effecting good governance. But when it comes to what has been the epicentre of the discussion from a policy perspective on problem gambling and on gambling reform over the past, roughly, year and a half since the last federal election, we know—and the member for Denison is still, no doubt, feeling the bruises off the back of the complete and utter betrayal of his bona fides by the Prime Minister—that the Independents were basically grist for the mill. We had a Prime Minister who said and did whatever she thought was required of her in order to harness the support of the member for Denison, the member for Lyne and others, and then chewed that up and spat it out on the basis of political expediency.
It was obvious to those of us who have been around this chamber for some time—and I have the privilege of having a couple of years of service under my belt now—that this was always going to be something that the Labor Party was going to walk away from. And I have to say that, standing on the floor of the Bankstown Sports Club faced with three members of the Labor Party, including a cabinet minister, and surrounded as I was with angry Labor heartland people, I knew that there was no way that the Labor Party was going to continue to embrace its so-called commitment to gambling reform. So it was on the basis of political expediency that the written commitment by the Prime Minister to the member for Denison was junked, as was the case in terms of the Prime Minister's commitment to not introducing a carbon tax, and a whole raft of different things—a people's congress on climate change et cetera. There is such an endless list, that I will not go through them all.
We know that political expediency reigns supreme with this Prime Minister, and so the member for Denison was left high and dry. But what concerns me the most is that the Independents potentially are supporting something, in terms of a so-called trial, that completely runs contrary to good governance in this country—a benchmark that all members should remain adhered to, especially those who say that their support of the federal government is dependent on it.
On 10 February 2012—only three days ago—there was a very interesting announcement that was made with respect to best practice for regulation requirements. It was issued by the Australian government, very under the radar. I will read it:
On 21 January 2012, the Prime Minister—
and others—
jointly announced the Government’s plan to tackle problem gambling. Of the regulatory measures announced, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) has responsibility for
banning the promotion of live odds during sports coverage;
extending pre-commitment to online betting services; and
cracking down on online sports betting companies offering credit and introduce stricter limits on betting inducements.
A Regulation Impact Statement was required to inform these regulatory decisions but was not prepared. Consequently, the Office of Best Practice Regulation has assessed the proposal for these measures as being non-compliant with the Australian Government’s best practice regulation requirements.
So a department of the Australian government that the Prime Minister presides over and that the Independents support says:
… the Office of Best Practice Regulation has assessed the proposal for these measures—
that is, the announced trial—
as being non-compliant with the Australian Government’s best practice regulation requirements.
So what does the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, say about the Office of Best Practice? Again, I will quote from a release from the minister dated 28 October 2010, where she says:
Well designed regulation is of critical importance to the Australian economy. Good regulation can encourage innovation and minimise compliance costs for business, including small business, and the not-for-profit sector. Poorly designed regulation, however, can cause frustration and impose unnecessary costs on all sectors of the community.
We have a government that are committed to political expediency, to imposing costs on this sector and to being seen to be doing rather than actually doing something for problem gamblers—and they stand condemned.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (20:18): I thank the member for Lyne and I note the presence of the member for Denison and their longstanding commitment to gambling reform in this country. We have just heard everything about what is wrong with the opposition. Not once in a speech of five minutes did the member for Moncrieff, who sits on the same committee as me, the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, offer one solution, one idea, one notion—not a scintilla of a suggestion—in relation to good gambling reform policy in this country. The coalition always say no. That is the reality. I thank the member for Lyne for moving this motion. As he knows, the states and territories traditionally regulate gaming machines. The COAG process has in the past and will continue in the future to discuss gaming reform in this country. The Productivity Commission investigated caps in 1999 and 2010. The Productivity Commission remained sceptical about their effectiveness as a harm minimisation measure, as you would know. Their report said that, at the current level of gaming, machine caps are likely to be largely ineffective in addressing gambling harm. The Productivity Commission recommended a cautious approach to relaxing gaming machine numbers whereby no further increase in the number of gaming machines should be made.
The government agrees with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report. We agree that precommitment is a more effective measure to reduce problem gambling. About 500,000 Australians are at risk of gambling problems, and in my household I was one of them. My father, tragically, when he was alive, had a gambling problem which meant that we lived not just in a working class background but in poverty. He had an alcohol addiction as well. So this is not just political; it is personal for me. To hear the member for Moncrieff talk about that and to politicise this issue in that way is a disgrace. These are important matters.
This government, along with the member for Denison, who has agreed to support legislation—and I ask the other crossbenchers to do something—is going to tackle problem gambling in a way that no government has had the guts to do in the past. We will have a trial of a mandatory precommitment scheme, supported by the Productivity Commission, in the ACT. We will bring in a $250 daily withdrawal limit from ATMs, because about 85 per cent of the withdrawals at ATMs at pubs and clubs are for less than $250. Electronic warnings and cost-of-play displays on poker machines by 2016 are another reform we are going to undertake. There are many other reforms, including additional funding to support 50 new financial counsellors and improved training for staff in pokies venues.
Why do I say this is important? In my electorate we have 42 venues, boasting—I use that word advisedly—1,169 poker machines. In the Ipswich City Council area, the average expenditure per poker machine each month is $5,024. Figures show that gaming machines in Ipswich collect on average about $7 million a month. So Ipswich has a big problem in this regard. Ipswich punters are losing over $5,000 a month on each machine.
There has been a campaign of misinformation attacking this Labor government, the member for Denison and anyone seriously wanting gaming and gambling reform in this country. We see the normalisation of gambling at football matches and on TV screens. We see young men think it is normal to do this. We see older women and older men sacrifice their pensions. The misinformation from Clubs Australia and Clubs Queensland has been disingenuous and inaccurate, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The truth is that Australians lost about $10.5 billion on the pokies in clubs and pubs in 2008-09. And, much worse, during the floods in my home town of Ipswich in January 2011, we saw a significant increase—about an eight per cent increase—in people trying to recover and trying to get back the money they lost during the floods. Clubs that are not dependent on problem gamblers will not have a problem, and it is a point I have made repeatedly. I thank the member for Lyne and the member for Denison for their commitment to gambling reform. We want to work with you to make sure we achieve good outcomes for the people of Australia.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (20:24): I would like to start by commending the member for Lyne for his interest and involvement in the important issue of gambling reform. His motion clearly has merit. Even more significant, perhaps, is that here we have another member of the federal parliament standing up and arguing for reform in another sign that problem gambling is now a national issue warranting a federal response. If there is anything in the motion of the member for Lyne that I might question, it is not in the substance but rather the member's optimism that state and territory can be trusted to cooperate on any kind of meaningful gambling reform. After all, these are the same governments, with the admirable exception of Western Australia, that have grown fat on the tax revenue off the $12 billion lost each year by poker machine players and in particular the $5 billion from poker machine problem gamblers. No, state and territory governments are part of the problem. It is my belief that gambling reform is now very much a federal issue and that it is the responsibility of the federal parliament to deliver a solution.
Indeed, the Australian government will soon introduce legislation into the federal parliament in an unprecedented move to finally do something about poker machine problem gambling, albeit one disappointingly short of the meaningful reform agreed to by the Prime Minister after the 2010 federal election.
I would also like to commend the member for Lyne for addressing the issue of tax reform in his motion. Currently, the tax collected by the states and territories is not counted as revenue when GST is calculated. This gives a disproportionate advantage to the big gambling states, in particular New South Wales and Queensland. Reform in this area is not only sensible but something that would be to the great advantage of small states like Tasmania that have lower pro rata revenue from gambling taxes.
I have been greatly heartened by the number of my parliamentary colleagues who have expressed a deep interest in problem gambling and its impact on Australia. They know that when a person has a gambling addiction they bet away their money, their family's money, the money to send their children to school and the money that they plan to retire with. In many cases, problem gamblers even steal from their parents or employers. In fact, some 60 per cent of problem gamblers commit crime to support their addiction, according to one study. The percentage of prisoners in Australia with a gambling addiction varies between 17.4 per cent for Queensland and 33 per cent for South Australia.
After borrowing and stealing what they can, problem gamblers are left with no money and no job, so they are likely to lose their marriage and their family. They may lose their house if they have not sold it already. The time it takes varies, but eventually most problem gamblers hit rock bottom. They run out of money, out of options and out of friends and family. Some manage to fight the habit and start their life anew. But others tragically end their lives. Up to 17 per cent of suicides in Australia are thought to be gambling related. There are currently more than 100,000 problem gamblers in Australia. Each one affects between five and 10 other people, so it is not so much to say that gambling adversely affects millions of Australians. That is why I remain focused on this issue.
Australians are among the biggest gambling losers in the world. Gambling addiction causes greater harm to our communities than in other country in the world. On balance, I support this motion and certainly will support the parliament discussing gambling reform at every other possible opportunity. The federal parliament is now the place to tackle gambling reform. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to look for opportunities to take real action to stop the loss of money, the loss of jobs and ultimately the loss of lives. Frankly, we owe it to the Australians who are hurting, the most vulnerable Australians and the Australians who this government is meant to work for and who we are elected to represent.
Debate adjourned.
Beauty Pageants
Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Hall:
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.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm—Deputy Speaker) (20:29): I am very pleased that the member for Shortland has brought this important motion to the House tonight. People may think that it is flippant and silly matter but it is not. A beauty pageant caused an absolute outrage in Melbourne and I do not want to see the growth in my society of toddlers in tiaras and baby beauty queens and contests. The organisers of the contest that sparked the controversy and that was probably the genesis of this motion before us tonight said that there was great interest and that people wanted to be there and that it was about giving children confidence in growing up. No, it is not. As we heard earlier during the debate on the motion about the sexualisation of children, this is making our children grow up too soon. We are not even talking about teenagers; these are tots. They are between nought and three years old, and people are dressing them up as adults. They are making them sexual beings; they are putting on make-up. If any of you has had the pleasure or the horror of watching Toddlers and Tiaras—I have not, but I have had lots of reports from my children—there is an infamous scene where a child is done up as Dolly Parton: she has got the fake boobs, the fake bum and the full make-up. She is three years of age. What is this telling our children about how they present themselves to society? Dolly Parton should be a role model for women, in so far as she is actually a fairly fierce independent woman who has made her way in society. Instead, they are portraying her as all about image. That is where it is really wrong. As the organiser of the quest that came to Melbourne from America but did not happen, says, and I quote from the newspaper article:
Ms Hill says Australians need not fear her. They think we're going to bring the flippers (fake toddler teeth)—
So that they have the big teeth you are meant to have to look beautiful—
and the over-the-top tans and the big hair. You know, Australia has so many beautiful contestants.
I do not want my children to think that you are judged by your beauty, that that is the mark you make in the world. That is what these contests are doing. It is interesting to read that, quoting from another newspaper article in respect of this contest:
Photo categories include natural (no make-up), glamour (make-up allowed) and a fun photo.
Children will also perform a talent routine, such as dancing or singing.
In the formal gown section, children over three will be judged on public speaking, sincerity and confidence.
Family psychologist Andrew Fuller said pageants could lead to competition, anxiety and embarrassment.
"This is a good recipe for how to predispose your daughter into having an eating disorder," he said.
"The risk is that they suddenly fear that their body shape is more important than their intellect."
Psychologist Dr Janet Hall said pageants taught children that looks were more important than a good heart.
"It makes a competition out of being more grown up than you are," she said.
That is the issue. I have spoken often in this place about the scourge of body image. It is the No. 1 that children and young adults have cited in a national survey done by Mission Australia for the last several years—the No. 1 issue of concern. When you think about all that is going on in this world for our young people, originally it was just girls, now it is girls and boys, the No. 1 issue is body image. These pageants are instilling it not just in our teenagers but now in our tots. I despair that mothers—and it is a gross rationalisation, I do realise—are living their lives through their children, doing them up and trotting them out in this thing without thinking about the consequences and the impact it has. Another article of the time read:
Australian and New Zealand psychiatrists have backed calls for child beauty pageants to be banned, saying they encourage the sexualisation of children and can cause developmental harm.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists says American-style pageants, like the one slated for July in Melbourne, promote an adult's perception of "beauty".
When asked if they backed a ban of the competitions, chair of the college Phillip Brock told AAP: "Yes we do. We're giving these kids messages that how they appear, how they perform and standards about what they're to come up to is actually more important than what they're like inside," he said.
That is the issue. I am proud to be part of a government that has heard the issue about body image, that is putting money towards establishing fora to develop voluntary codes for the industry about how models look and that is doing more in the space of sexualisation. But allowing this pageantry to creep into our society, which is just so—and I hate this terminology—un-Australian. I just do not see it; I do not want it. I think we need to recognise that it is not just a bit of fun, it is actually quite harmful and it is actually quite damaging. Children need to be children. We need to allow them that space. These pageants should be banned.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (20:34): I rise to speak on the motion on beauty pageants that appears on the Notice Paper under my name. This follows on very nicely from the motion we debated earlier about the sexualisation and commercialisation of children. This is a prime example of how young children are sexualised and commercialised. The impact this has on them in later years is as yet unmeasured. It has the potential to have a negative impact on child development, and many authorities have stated this fact.
One of the catalysts for my putting this motion on the Notice Paper was a discussion I heard on the ABC when I was coming home from parliament one night. A psychologist was talking about the impact these beauty pageants would have on young girls' lives. He said if he was interested in growing his business he would be advocating in favour of these beauty pageants because what they do, as the previous speaker said, is create the negative body images and self-esteem issues that can really affect a young person's wellbeing, confidence and overall quality of life and lead to serious problems such as ill health, eating disorders, depression, anxiety, self-harm and social isolation—all things that revolve around body image. As the previous speaker stated, the No. 1 issue for young people is body image.
I have done quite a bit of research on these beauty pageants. There are examples of young girls screaming in terror as their mothers approach them with spray cans. There are some three million children competing in American pageants every year, most of them girls aged between six months—in some reports, as young as two months—and 16 years. They compete locally and nationally, with themes such as swimwear, talent, evening wear and themed costumes. They are creating an unreal image of what a child should be and what a young girl should be. Young girls should be involved in sport or all the activities that growing young children should be involved in. It cannot be good for young kids to be involved in these pageants. I think the cost will be seen in years to come.
I referred to a paper that was done on child beauty pageant contestants associated with eating and mental health disorders. The lead researcher on that paper was Anna L. Wonderlich. The paper showed that results from surveys indicated that women who participated in childhood pageants scored significantly higher on measures of body dissatisfaction. No matter how thin they were, no matter how perfect their body was, it was still not good enough. Interpersonal distrust and impulse dysregulation were higher than in other women who did not participate in childhood beauty pageants. There was also a trend for childhood beauty pageant participants to report greater feelings of ineffectiveness than nonparticipants. A number of other findings are highlighted in this paper, which shows that even the competitiveness and ranking of individuals lead to problems for young people in the future.
I have no hesitation in saying that we need to look at this issue. We do not need this in Australia. There are real concerns around beauty pageants that involve young people, some as young as two months old. It is not good enough. We cannot allow it to continue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): I should have said at the outset that I want to thank the member for Shortland for bringing the motion before the House. I call the member for La Trobe.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (20:39): I am very pleased to be able to speak on this motion moved by the member for Shortland. It follows on from the earlier motion on the sexualisation and commercialisation of children. They are incredibly important issues, and they certainly are important to constituents in my electorate who have raised them with me, including specifically the circumstances of the beauty pageant that was held in Melbourne last year—and that has already been noted by the member for Chisholm during the course of this debate. Certainly it caused concern for the parents of a lot of young children within my own electorate; the parents went along and voiced their concerns on the day and expressed their views in the media.
I know that this debate raises questions about parental responsibility and what each individual parent, carer or responsible adult sees for their own child, but it is an incredibly important issue for the broader society and it is appropriate that we raise it in this place and escalate it to a matter of importance that we consider here, because it is certainly not an issue about prudishness. It is an issue about the exploitation or potential exploitation of very young children who really do not have the capacity to express their own views about what happens to them on a day-to-day basis or about whether or not they will compete in these events. I know that we encourage competition amongst children in a range of areas, but this is a matter which is not about any usual competition. It is a matter which bases competition only on one's appearance and cosmetic issues.
I know that children's beauty pageants have attracted quite a lot of media attention. They certainly did in Melbourne during the course of the last year. The reason for that is the potential for negative body image arising amongst those children who compete and amongst children who observe these competitions taking place. The reason why that is so important and has been the subject of comment by government, and a range of bodies set up by and in conjunction with government, is that they are amongst the key issues that are raised by our young people themselves.
There is a wealth of evidence, and I cited some of it during the earlier debate today, on the sexualisation and commercialisation of children and young people. I would mention a couple of figures that I found quite extraordinary. I know that the Victorian Centre of Excellence in Eating Disorders has published a few statistics about children and body image and research that has been undertaken relatively recently. It describes a survey of pre-adolescent Sydney children and notes that 50 per cent of primary school children surveyed wanted to weigh less and 25 per cent of seven- to 10-year-olds have dieted to lose weight. I found that quite extraordinary. I also found extraordinary the comments in an international study which was documented in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology in December 2010. It noted that half of the participants aged between three and six years were worried about their weight. It says:
Although nearly all girls liked the way they looked, self-report data indicated that nearly one-third of the participants would change something about their physical appearance and nearly half of the girls worried about being fat.
That is really quite an extraordinary occurrence in relation to children of that age, so it is appropriate that this evening, and through governmental policy and governmental action, this broad issue of body image has been escalated to an issue of national concern.
I would say in relation to that that the Commonwealth government has made a commitment to taking action on body image, and that led to the establishment in 2009 of a National Advisory Group on Body Image, which consists of representatives from the health sector, young people, NGOs and academia. It had a significant role in providing advice and recommendations on how best to tackle this very challenging issue. I know that there has been a significant effort put in by the Commonwealth government in response to the issues raised by that group.
I must say that, despite the significance of this issue, I am somewhat disappointed that it is solely members of the government who have chosen to comment on it and contribute to debate on this issue this evening. I would hope, given the apparent interest in this issue that was raised in the earlier motion today, that there might be more comment on this matter in future from members of the opposition.
Debate adjourned.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Bennelong Electorate: Housing and Infrastructure
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (20:44): I rise with a grievance on behalf of the people of Bennelong, a grievance that lies central to nearly every complaint I have received from my constituents: the lack of planning, the lack of infrastructure and the lack of policy direction. Yet to address our future needs we first must understand our history: where we have come from and what we have learnt along the way.
Australia is justly proud of the legend of the digger: the bravest of men who have come from amongst us in times of peril, courageous in the face of fire and fair dinkum heroes. As we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin, we remember the courage they showed to preserve our freedom and our liberty. There have been other heroes: from those first settlers, willing or not, and those who were imposed upon and suffered every tragedy of a battlefield but who now welcome us to their country. The early pioneers survived the harshest of conditions and built our first great industry. After waves of conflict came good times, riding the sheep's back, and then enormous growth stimulated by immigrants seeking a better life from the devastation of Europe. 'She'll be right' and 'the lucky country' were accurate descriptions of our state of affairs: freedom assured by our willingness to fight for it and opportunities created and converted through hard work. Our luck has improved with mineral assets found coinciding with unprecedented demand and the world's most populous states becoming great economic powers, conveniently located in our region. You cannot beat good luck.
We have liberty, we have wealth and we have established a reputation as a loyal ally beyond question and as a trustworthy and honourable trading partner, despite recent aberrant behaviour. What is the next battle, and where will we find our next goldmine? When there are no wars, and when we have mined and exported our last ounce of luck, what will we have built with our hard-fought freedom and wealth from good fortune to preserve our way of life for future generations?
Courage in the face of fire must now be replaced with the courage to develop a vision for a great future: the courage to dream, to stimulate imagination and to unite all Australians to this purpose. This capacity will define our future heroes. One of the truisms of life is that the only constant is change, and so our next war is that very challenge—to deal with change, to value our freedoms, to be the trustees and custodians of our great wealth and to develop and realise our opportunities.
The next war is the battle of opportunity not to be lost. Our greatest challenge is to have the courage to dream, to imagine and to commit to the development of vision for a greater future. It is not good enough just to save—that would result in denying our potential. It would be disrespectful to our heroes to waste our liberty and not to realise all that our freedom can achieve. To plunder our wealth that has arrived through good fortune and hard work would be the ultimate insult to anyone who has ever tended a flock, dug a hole or built a dam.
The former member for Bennelong and Prime Minister John Howard once said that our country needs people of broad life experience who have the capacity to develop policies, because government should be won by the presentation of superior policies and government should only be retained as a result of the delivery of those policies. With the responsibility of our wealth, our liberty and our people, plans must be developed through a process of unrestrained imagination—great vision that is tested and scrutinised through the most rigorous processes but protected from those enemies within who would prioritise their own personal gain.
Australia has never had a national plan of development. Our growth has been random and ad hoc. Without a plan we have recently arrived at the confounding situation where Sydney has the second highest land prices in the world, second to Hong Kong, when our nation's single greatest asset is land—we still have boundless plains to share. Without a plan of settlement we have living costs in our major cities that are amongst the highest in the world, and congestion to match. My electorate of Bennelong is a perfect example of inappropriate amounts of high-density housing coupled with an absolute lack of infrastructure development. We once had the highest standards of living for the highest numbers of people—indeed a commonwealth. This has been eroded to a point where the cost-of-living increases are the inverse of our quality of life. Productivity and international competitiveness eroded; our true potential stifled—what to do?
A real estate developer evaluates a green site. When it stacks up, they will secure the site, build infrastructure, subdivide and sell. Wealth will have been created for the individual and opportunities for productivity for the community. Some developers will take risks and many will fail, proportionate to that risk. Experienced developers will be more conservative and spend more time and resources in evaluating the potential of a site, resulting in more certainty of wealth generation.
Where are the green sites prime for such development on a national scale? How much wealth can be created? How much will it cost? And how can this be achieved without imprisoning us in debt? What investment is required in infrastructure to be the catalyst not only for wealth creation but to provide the pressure release valve for cost-of-living pressures in our major cities whilst creating productivity and improving our quality of life?
When our two major cities form the fourth busiest air corridor in the world, yet are still linked only by a single track of rail and two lanes of highway in some parts, alarm bells should be ringing. This represents a national infrastructure deficit of serious proportions stifling our country's potential. It is clear that with no comprehensive strategic plan and no commitment to infrastructure this war will be lost.
When last considered, very fast trains were dismissed because of the likelihood of operational losses. Is that it? Is that the extent of thorough debate, when a government meets before a barbecue with butchers paper and pencils? This attitude is penny wise but pound foolish. Imagine if the same approach had been taken with the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The £6.2 million cost was not viewed as a profit-making exercise, yet the billions of dollars in land value uplift and productivity increases have repaid that investment many times over. It is a matter of historical record that the bridge was completed during the depths of the Great Depression. What do we need now during the heights of our mining boom?
What would happen if very fast trains were considered in full, if collateral benefits were weighed against the cost of a ticket? What is the development potential of the tract of land between Sydney and Melbourne? What infrastructure could be contemplated to increase land values in Albury, Goulburn, Gundagai and Wagga to provide infinite growth to our regions and relief from housing cost pressures in our major cities? What impact on productivity would development in this region have, and what wealth would be created? Should special interest groups be empowered to block such initiatives for their own personal gain?
The final judgment on our performance in dealing with our opportunities gained on battlefields of freedom and wealth gains from good fortune and hard work by previous generations is the path that we now choose. It is imperative that we master-plan our nation's development with a vision towards the next 50 to 100 years, not a policy that only sees as far as the next election. Ill-conceived projects hastily implemented that encumber future generations with debt should gain the harshest judgment. It is not good enough for us to simply sit, content with the spoils of those who confronted the hardship of a pioneer and had the courage to bring their all to that challenge. This is not worthy of those who risked all on the battlefield, made the perilous trip over oceans, found a way across the mountains or perished in total commitment, like Burke and Wills. We owe them action to grow our nation, to prove that their inspiration is alive in our veins to confront our own modern challenges.
It is time to face this next foe with the same courage, this time armed with vision from a liberated imagination and a future greater than the one envisaged by those who did not dare to dream. Perhaps we can embrace that future whilst riding on the back of a very fast train, opening up our boundless plains for industry, for jobs, facilitating growth and productivity. Then we would have made our own luck, and she would be all right.
Health Services
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (20:54): I rise to talk about the hypocrisy of those on the other side in the debate that has been going on in the chamber for some hours now and for the past two days in relation to private health insurance. Before I do, I have to comment on the grievance of the member for Bennelong. I can only assume that the member for Bennelong must be fully supportive of the actions of this Labor government in its investment in infrastructure, which has seen more investment in infrastructure since 2007 than the previous Howard government invested in 11 years.
Tonight, I wish to talk about health. We have heard many speakers from the opposition talking about the private health insurance rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge, feigning concern about working families and the health system. These are the same people who introduced a Medicare levy surcharge and then left the threshold unchanged for a decade. They did not index the threshold; they left it there so that more and more people were affected by the consequences of the Medicare levy surcharge. It took Labor coming into office to fix it—and in 2008 we did fix the indexation in relation to the Medicare levy surcharge—so it is hard to believe the rhetoric we are hearing from those on the other side in relation to the private health insurance rebate now.
I am quite happy to put on the public record that I support means-testing of the private health insurance rebate. To me it is what a responsible government does, a government which wants to ensure that it is implementing responsible fiscal policy and ensuring that the taxpayer's dollar is going where it should go. That money should not go to those who least need that assistance. I believe that means-testing private health insurance certainly ensures that funds not needed to assist those on the higher incomes can go back into the health system to be reinvested for long-term health infrastructure. We have not heard those on the other side refer to the Intergenerational report of 2010, published on the Treasury website on 1 February 2010, which said, 'The private health insurance rebate is the fastest growing component of the Australian government health expenditure, increasing by over 50 per cent per person in real terms over the period 2012-13 to 2022-23.' That is why that action is so important.
I do not want to spend the time I have talking just about that issue. I think it is important in this debate about health and which is the best party to take this country forward in health reform and investment to look at some history. If we look at what the Howard government did we find $1 billion ripped out of hospitals, which is equivalent to 1,025 beds; the capping of GP training places so that, at the end of the Howard government, six in 10 Australians lived in areas where there were doctor shortages; and the failure to deal with elective surgery waiting times. In the last year of the Howard government, 88,630 Australians had waited longer than clinically recommended for elective surgery. They also ignored rural cancer infrastructure, despite country patients being up to three times more likely to die than city patients within five years after diagnosis.
Compare that with what the Labor government has done since coming to power federally. We have delivered a $2.2 billion comprehensive package focusing on early intervention and coordinated care in relation to mental health, the largest ever. We are building 64 GP superclinics, including in the electorate of Petrie. We are upgrading 425 existing GP clinics across Australia. We increased hospital funding by $20 billion in 2008 and are increasing it by a further $20 billion from 2011. We have invested in 1,300 new subacute beds and support for 2,500 new aged care beds and, very importantly, we have invested in 22 regional cancer centres and 44 McGrath Foundation specialist breast cancer nurses.
This is very important. I am not in a regional area and I do not have one of these cancer centres. That does not mean that I as a federal member of this parliament do not believe that this is an extremely important investment for this country and for people who live in the regions. We all have a responsibility to provide those health services for people in the regions. This government has also delivered a GP after-hours advice line and more than 70,000 more elective surgery procedures in the last two years to slash hospital waiting list times, and there is ongoing investment. Locally, there is a lot that has been going on on the north side of Brisbane. The Prince Charles Hospital has a new 12-bay paediatric emergency department, 20 short-stay paediatric ward beds and specialist outpatient clinics. The Prince Charles Hospital is located in the electorate next to mine, the electorate of Lilly, but serves many people across northern Brisbane and beyond.
At the Redcliffe Hospital we have committed over $15 million to provide six new children's short-stay beds, four children's out-patient clinics and a dedicated child friendly waiting room. It is true that there are a lot elderly people living in the Redcliffe peninsula area. We have an ageing population but we also have a lot of young families. It is so important that we have health services that look at both ends of the spectrum. We are not just investing in aged care; we are also looking at what we need as far as paediatric services in the area go. We have provided $7 million for the construction of a renal dialysis unit at the North Lakes Health Precinct. The unit will include 12 renal dialysis chairs able to provide treatment to 48 patients every year.
We are investing in Medicare Locals. My new Medicare Local is officially launching one of their new satellite sites in North Lakes in the coming weeks. This Medicare Local will be able to bring together our primary and allied healthcare professionals so we have a much more coordinated approach to health services in our community and beyond.
One area that I am extremely passionate about, an area that I believe is under threat by the opposition, is the investment in e-health. It is extremely important that we have investment in e-health. We have heard about all of the positive outcomes that come from e-health, not just in the regions from being able to get specialist care and reduce the travel time for patients but also from keeping e-health records. When someone arrives at a hospital they may be unconscious and they may have a long health history. Those records will be there and doctors will be able to treat those people in a much better way. Because of the e-health system there will be less risk of a false diagnosis or the wrong medicines being given.
We have heard from the opposition that in funding their future health policies they will cut back on essential health services. They will scrap the GP superclinics that are yet to be built—I see the member for Mayo nodding his head. They will scrap e-health and scrap the after-hours GP hotline. They actually think this is a good idea. This is their way of funding health reforms for the future: just cutting existing services. We should not be surprised because that is what the Leader of the Opposition did when he was the health minister. He cut health services and took the funds elsewhere. He just shifted money. This government is shifting money away from providing a 30 per cent rebate for those who least need it and putting it into essential services elsewhere.
My grievance tonight is the hypocrisy of those on the other side in relation to the private health insurance rebate and, more importantly, the broader health debate and the investments this government is trying to make for the future—the ongoing negativity of the other side in just opposing any reforms in relation to health and further investment in this area. I know it is in the interests of the people in the electorate of Petrie and it is in the interests of people across this country to support the Labor government's reforms in health and oppose the actions and policies of the opposition to cut costs.
Economy
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (21:04): It is a pleasure to rise tonight in this grievance debate—although I do not think that there will be many watching; I think they will be watching another interesting grievance debate which is going on on another television station. I rise this evening to speak about a really important issue that is not getting a lot of attention from the government at the moment, which is the state and the future of our economic performance, particularly the productive capacity of our economy moving into the future.
We saw tonight on the news and throughout the day the events in Athens over the last 24 hours—the riots occurring in the streets there and the population's outrage at the austerity measures that have to be put in place to try to address some of the fundamental problems that that economy has and that culture of dependence which has built up in the European government systems for too long. We just heard the member for Petrie talk about all this wonderful money that comes from thin air that the Labor Party like to spend—that sort of culture which has occurred in Europe for so long, building up massive debts which are unfunded and which have now caused this great Armageddon of a debt crisis that the world is having to deal with.
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: My learned colleague makes the point that, if you do not think these policies through and you do not think about how you are going to pay for them in the future, at some point someone has to pay. Right now it is the Greek people who are paying and it will be the Italians and also the Spaniards. We all pay through lower economic activity. It obviously impacts on our performance too.
Last week I raised a few of these issues in the reinvented Modest Member column in the Australian Financial Review. In that we talked about how government regulation makes it harder for families and Australians to be able to deal with the cost-of-living increases that they see. I pointed particularly to the example of the childcare reforms which have been so appallingly implemented by the minister in charge—a minister which, I might add, refuses to meet with the relevant childcare associations to discuss their concerns about the impending huge increase in costs that Australian families who try to send their children to child care will be burdened with. Of course, what that will lead to is additional pressure for governments to subsidise to keep up with these costs, because the reforms are being so appalling implemented by this minister.
But rather than a debate from the Labor Party—who like to run around and say that everyone is negative about everything that they do—the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare unsurprisingly put out a false release. But the Minister for Veterans Affairs took the cake and put out a release, claiming that the article called for cuts to veterans pensions! It did not mention veterans, it did not mention pensions and it did not mention cuts. So, yet again, the modern Australian Labor Party just cannot be honest with the Australian people. We saw it with 'There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead' and we saw it with the private health insurance rebate, which we are debating in the other place.
I think the member for Moncrieff makes a very good point: maybe if they had a better president, maybe if they had someone with a bit of conscience and a bit of honesty, the member for Lingiari, the Minister for Veterans Affairs and the Minister for Childcare might actually be forced to be honest with the Australian people about what is going on in this place.
I think what we have to start to contemplate is that the outcomes of the failed Gillard and Rudd years for our future will be seen in two areas in particular. The first is the challenges we now face with our budget. The Labor Party like to run around and say 'We're sick as far as it comes to debt but we are not as sick as the Europeans'—and that is true. We are not as sick as the Europeans or the Americans, but we have gone from a fiscal position in 2006-07 of a $20 billion surplus and $70 billion in the bank with the Future Fund to a position now where net debt is expected to be $136 billion over the forward estimates—that is, if you accept that the Labor Party will not find new ways to spend and waste money, which is a big assumption. In terms of the globe, that is a low debt but that does not mean that it is a good debt. It is a debt that needs to be serviced. Some $300 billion needs to be serviced through interest payments. It means that the public sector is competing with the private sector for funds—and we see the outcome of that with higher interest rates.
But what we also see is a long-term challenge for a structural deficit problem that is developing in our country. You have a population becoming more dependent on government payments and a population that is dealing with a legacy of four years of Labor deficits which have built up this massive debt. Add to that that there has also been a series of microeconomic reforms which are going to be making it harder for our people to compete into the future. Putting aside the lack of effort put into genuine reform in the education space—and members will note that I have raised this before—we have also seen the reregulation of the Australian workplace, which is now starting to have some extremely dire consequences. If you allow me the indulgence I will go through a few of them. Just in the last few weeks we have seen a Japanese business leader, the president of Toyota in Australia—it was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen—actively criticising the laws that have been put in place by this Labor government. Mr Yasuda said automotive manufacturing here was fully exposed to global competition. He said that if it was to grow the industrial relations system, especially the culture and attitude of the workforce, needed to be more competitive. That culture is led from the top—the reforms that this government and this current prime minister put in place.
We have also seen Alan Joyce, the head of Qantas—the Labor Party like to try and demonise him so often for the way that he is running that company in a very difficult environment for global airlines—out there again today talking about bullying unions. These union officials are not people wanting to represent the workforce; they want to represent themselves. It is all about privilege and opportunity within the Australian Labor Party.
We have seen a seven-day strike called, up at the Bowen Basin mines. And we have seen the shutting down of BHP mines and the reaction to that by Marius Kloppers. He again involved himself in the politics of the day by referring to the changes to the Australian industrial relations system, saying that the right to manage when negotiating with unions was nearly impossible. And on the front page of the Advertiser was an article about one of the great opportunities for South Australia, the Olympic Dam project. All of these changes involving the reregulation of the Australian workplace put in doubt these great opportunities that we have going forward, particularly in the mining industry.
But this has all been summed up in today's Financial Review, under the headline 'Shorten puts blame on managers'. The new minister for workplace relations—the boy wonder of the Australian parliament!—could have said: 'Okay there may be some problems. We have had business leader after business leader speaking about it, the numbers of strikes are up and people are losing their jobs.' He could have said, 'We need to have a genuine look at this.' But of course, it is never his fault! It is never the government's fault! It is never the fault of the unions, who have been given this privileged position in the system! It is the managers' fault; it is always someone else's fault! At the end of the day, the long-term consequence of this Labor government and its economic management will be to the detriment of the next generation of Australians, who will not have the opportunities to achieve their full potential and their productive capacity in the world.
We have a huge productivity problem—it is a debate that does not go on in this place. We have a problem competing in the world. The government is blindsiding our industries in 2012 by tying them with regulations which were built for the 1950s.
As Tom Friedman said, we have a developing flat world where our industries need to be able to compete in a flexible and productive environment against industries across the globe. This is not, as the Labor Party would try to say, about going down to low wages and low costs. It is about having a highly educated, entrepreneurial workforce which is able to produce what it can in the best areas it can. This is not about chosen industries and chosen unions; this is about creating an economy where our children will be able to compete in a globe which is becoming more competitive.
This year I think we will face, sadly, the perils of higher unemployment. We will see a lot of people lose their jobs. Unfortunately, we have seen today ANZ cut more workers. That is absolutely a part of the consequences of the reregulation of the Australian workplace and the terrible economic management and the spending of this government. That is the consequence that we will see, not just this year but into the future. It is a real problem and it needs to be addressed.
Canberra Electorate
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (21:14): In our first sitting back in the chamber this year I thought it would be fitting to take a look back at and put on the record some of the achievements that have been delivered in my electorate and in the ACT more generally as a result of the Gillard government's hard work, because it contrasts dramatically with the vision for the future of those opposite. The future that they suggest for Canberra—well, it is recession. It is plummeting house prices. It is the loss of thousands and thousands of jobs. It is thousands of people leaving town. They are talking about 12,000 jobs, but that is just the beginning. They are looking at cutting $50 million in government programs. And then there is the $70 billion black hole—they just do not know where that is. So the future that those opposite have for Canberra is recession, plummeting house prices, loss of jobs and people leaving town—12,000 jobs lost is just the beginning; that is just where we are starting to count.
We know this from experience, because the last time the Howard government was in, in 1996, 30,000 public service jobs right across Australia went, and tens of thousands of jobs were lost in Canberra. I know from experience about loss of a public service job because I was a public servant who lost my job. I was in foreign affairs and trade, and the position overseas that I had was cut, as were many positions, and I was brought back to Australia not having served out the posting. At that stage, there were a whole range of public affairs positions in the department of foreign affairs—I think there were about 60, 70 or 80 public affairs positions; they were reduced to eight. We had 22 postings overseas; they were cut back to three. So you can imagine me coming back to Australia. My partner at that stage—he was not my husband—and I came back to Australia. He had resigned his job to accompany me on that posting, and he came back to a Canberra that was in recession. So work was pretty difficult to find, and there he was, rummaging around; he ended up getting part-time work. But they were pretty rugged times.
At that stage, because so many jobs were lost, there were farewells being held in bulk. You would just go along to a farewell lunch, and there would be 10 or 12 people sitting around the table. Many of these people would have been in the service for 20 years, and they were just being farewelled in bulk, with no gifts, just a nice lunch with some of their former colleagues and then goodbye. That is the future that those opposite would paint for Canberra: a future of recession, job losses, plummeting housing prices, and not growth but decimation and recession.
As the Prime Minister has declared, last year was a year of decision and delivery for the government and, indeed, the Prime Minister has delivered some great macro reforms to this nation and great reforms to Canberra. In contrast to that, with those opposite you would get decimation. With the Gillard government you will get growth and prosperity in the nation's capital.
I would like to recognise the many reforms and projects that have been delivered in my local community that are not always reflected in the national debate. Never before have we seen so many cranes on the horizon in Canberra. It is a great time to be here. It is a picture of prosperity and growth. Canberra has been fortunate to be the recipient of a number of projects that have delivered great benefits to my electorate across a number of areas, and will bring enduring positive outcomes to my community.
Education is an area that I have great interest in. I see education as the great empowerer, the great transformer. So it has been my great pleasure to be able to attend the opening of many, many refurbished classrooms and halls, and new libraries, IT centres and administration buildings in schools across my electorate, from Catholic primary schools in the south of the electorate to government primary schools in the inner south at Red Hill, to independent primary schools. Right across the electorate, every primary school has had an investment of between $1.5 million and about $3.5 million, depending on their needs—every single primary school. Do we get anyone from those primary schools complaining? Not at all. We get people who are grateful, who would never have dreamed of having this sort of money invested in their schools. These refurbishments were made possible only because of Building the Education Revolution, that has seen an unprecedented investment in education infrastructure across Australia. As I said, speaking to all the parents, all the teachers, all the staff and the students, they cannot believe how wonderful it is to have that investment. It is a once-in-a-lifetime investment in their schools and they are so incredibly grateful. In the final weeks of 2011, I was present to officially open new classrooms at St Anthony's Primary School in Wanniassa in my electorate. For 27 years this local school taught from demountable buildings—or, for the Victorians here, portable buildings. Now, for the first time, thanks to the Gillard government, they have modern, purpose-built classrooms, where students can learn and teachers can get on with the important job of teaching. They have now got a beautiful hub area, a central area, with the classrooms all around it. Again, the parents cannot believe their luck, the students cannot believe their luck and the teachers and the other staff members cannot believe their luck.
Today I had the pleasure of visiting Narrabundah College in my electorate, where the minister for school education and I toured the classrooms. We met with students and saw firsthand the benefits that new computers are bringing to that learning environment. Narrabundah College has done well out of the Gillard government's increased funding for public education. Nearly $200,000 has been invested in new classrooms for the year 11 and 12 students through the BER fund. I have also been fortunate enough to see the new trades training centre at St Mary MacKillop Catholic College in Tuggeranong in my electorate. This centre will bring much needed skills and apprenticeships to the ACT. St Mary MacKillop is sharing this trade training centre with St Francis Xavier, St Clare's and Merici colleges. I was at St Clare's the other day doing my school Legends Award program, and I saw the hole in the ground that will be the new trade training centre—hopefully, by the end of the year. The principal there is overjoyed at the opportunity to have this trade training centre and also the other significant investments that the Gillard government has been making in education.
I am also greatly supportive of the Gillard government's training package that was announced in the budget last year and, in particular, I am supportive of the commitment to create another 130,000 new training places as well as an additional $100 million commitment to support apprentices through their training. Recently the ACT minister for education and I visited Tuggeranong College. We saw where $8 million will go towards the establishment of the Sustainable Living Trade Training Centre, which will be built over the next few years. The schools that will benefit from that centre are Erindale College, Lake Tuggeranong College, Calwell High School, Chisholm school, Lanyon High School, Wanniassa School and Namadgi School—all government schools. The other trade training centre is in the Catholic system and now we have one in the government system, which is great news. The refurbishment will service six schools, as I mentioned, and offer young people from the Tuggeranong Valley qualifications in everything from automotive to hospitality. This important initiative will give Canberra students more post-school options while addressing serious skill shortages in certain areas in Canberra.
I also welcome the funding that will provide apprentices with more mentoring and support as well as the introduction of tax payments to apprentices in critical trades. I know from my conversations with training providers in the electorate just how welcome these projects and this funding are. I have spoken to them about their difficulty in getting apprentices to complete their training. Indeed, I understand that only 48 per cent of apprentices do complete their training. That is why these commitments are so critical. They are particularly critical in a town like Canberra, where we have significant skill shortages in every area but community pharmacy. I know that trying to get a plumber on a weekend in this town is a very difficult thing and a very expensive thing. My husband burst a pipe last summer and had to get someone out to fix it. It cost us $450 for this plumber to come out and fix the pipe. Note to self: do not let journalists tackle plumbing. So this measure is very significant. These investments are very welcome in trying to reduce those skill shortages.
The Gillard government knows well that investing in education and training is vital. We also know very well the transformative power that quality and well-resourced education can have on someone's life, and that is why we have delivered so much to support education and training in Canberra.
Gillard Government
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (21:24): In this evening's grievance debate I would like to touch upon an issue that I believe is of some importance across the Australian economy. Predominantly, it is the complete inability of the Gillard Labor government to recognise the very distinct challenges the Australian economy faces—in particular, something that is often referred to in economic literature as Dutch disease.
Before I delve into that, I would like to touch upon some of the comments that were just made by the member for Canberra. In many ways the speech by the member for Canberra epitomises just what is wrong with the Australian Labor Party. In many ways the member's contribution to the House tonight underscores a defining philosophy of the Australian Labor Party that represents the very worst of government and completely erodes the incentive that exists across the Australian economy for people to allocate wealth, debt and equity to the creation of further wealth and jobs in this country.
It was extraordinary for me, representing the Gold Coast as I do and representing a services based city, to hear the member for Canberra wax lyrical about the 'devastation'—I believe that was her word—of Canberra and about how Canberra under the Howard government faced a recession and how house prices in Canberra were off. She said she would attend farewell lunches where there would be eight, nine, 10 or 12 people who had lost their jobs. It is extraordinary to come into this chamber and hear adjectives like 'devastation' used in relation to Canberra at a time when house prices in my electorate are off by 40, 50 or 60 per cent. Those sorts of falls would be completely unheard of in the Canberra property market. The word 'devastation' is used with respect to a price reduction of maybe 10 per cent in Canberra.
There is a sense of entitlement that really is epitomised by the member for Canberra—a sense of tenure of employment in the Public Service—that the private sector could only dream of. I believe it underscores the approach of the Labor Party that we hear members opposite talk about how it is a 'great time to be in Canberra' because there are cranes on the horizon and there is so much business activity going on. And the people who drive this are those who put their livelihoods on the line. The people who pay the taxes that drive the largesse of this government are the people whose residential mortgages back the businesses they have to walk away from. The people who drive this so-called investment are people who, from the sweat of their brow, take risks day in and day out in electorates like mine and others across the country so that members for Canberra can say: 'This is a great time to be in Canberra and be in the Public Service. We've never seen so much government spending. It's a fabulous time to be involved.'
I say to the member for Canberra and to the Labor government: you need to get real. You need to recognise what this government's policies are doing out there in the broader population and the impact they are having not only on house prices but also on the ability of businesses to have access to credit, and the livelihood of people. In my electorate, a city that is built on the tourism industry and the construction industry, you do not need to walk very far to see the direct impact that this government's policies are having. You do not need to walk far from my electorate office to see commercial tenancy after commercial tenancy with for-lease and vacancy signs in their windows. That is the price they pay for this government's largesse.
When I hear the member for Canberra talk about her pride and her swelling bosom at going to school classrooms and seeing the kids' faces in response to the rollout of the $16 billion Investing in Our Schools Program, I always ask the same question that I have put when I have turned up to the opening of a new school hall at a school in my electorate. I look down at the faces of young Australian kids who will be paying off that debt for the next 30 years. I look down at those kids and I say, 'I cannot justify that this government believes it is acceptable to mortgage their futures for the next 30 years when we as a government spent 12 years paying off Labor's debt.' For 12 years we made the hard decisions to pay off the debt so that Aussie kids' futures would not be mortgaged. This government, in the course of three years, blows the hard work of 12 years of the Howard government. That is the legacy of the Labor Party. That is the legacy of a government that spends like there is no tomorrow. Do you know why? Because tomorrow is financed by the work of Aussie kids today. They will be paying off those very averagely built, very low-spec school halls that are littering this country—some $16 billion worth. They will be paying off those school halls for the next 30 or 40 years. Young Australians can look at Julia Gillard and go, 'Oh, thank you, Julia Gillard—we've got four decades of higher taxes.' We have got a mining industry that is going to be paying among the highest rates of tax in the world. We have got a carbon tax imposed on our economy that is making us less competitive. Why? Because it is going to reduce global emissions from Australia by 0.05 per cent.
The lunacy of the Labor Party is extraordinary. It is a party filled with people that are idealistic to such an extent they lose sight of the real world. They really have no idea about what it actually means to drive an economy by encouraging and incentivising people. They do not understand what it means to be a small business man or woman who, thanks to this government's policies, is now paying 13 per cent or 14 per cent on an overdraft facility for their small business—one that is secured against a residential mortgage because banks will not lend to small businesses; they will only lend against their residential bricks and mortar. This government has now concentrated lending among the four major banks to the extent that approximately 90 per cent of new loans are written by those four banks. That is a direct consequence of this government's policies; there is no other reason. It has nothing to do with the GFC. It is a direct consequence of Labor's policies. Residential backed securities for small businesses are charging 12, 13 or 14 per cent. That is what ordinary Australians are dealing with at a time when the member for Canberra is saying how wonderful things are in this city—how wonderful it is because the government is borrowing $100 million a day to fuel its debt habit. I cannot express enough my disappointment in this government. I cannot express the pain that Australians—
Mr Perrett: Sit down then.
Mr CIOBO: No, I cannot express enough, Member for Moreton—give me another 20 minutes and I will be able to get close. The reality is that this is a government that is looking only at the time horizon of the next federal election. This is a government with no consideration for the future. We have a Prime Minister who will wring her hands and say how concerned she is about the jobs of Australian workers and, in particular, she will say how concerned she is about the jobs of Australian manufacturing workers. Where is the concern for the tens of thousands of people in Australia's tourism industry who have lost their jobs? Where is the concern for the tens of thousands of Australians in the retail sector who have lost their jobs? Where is the concern for the tens of thousands of Australians who are employed in the services sector who have lost their jobs? We never hear them mentioned. We do not hear the Treasurer talk about them.
Sure, we hear the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk about the car industry. And why is that? The answer is very obvious. It is because the car industry is heavily unionised, and those opposite rely on the patronage of the union movement to get them into office. It is the unions that feed them and that is why, when the unions say, 'Jump,' they say, 'How high?' But you know what? The workers in the tourism industry and the retail industry, those people who have casual jobs, are not unionised. They are struggling to make ends meet and they do not even get a look in. When those opposite actually start to give a damn about those workers in the service sector that do the jobs and generate the wealth for the majority for the Australian economy, then they will be concerned.
I only have a short period of time to touch on the claim that it is the coalition trying to cut the wages for these workers. How often do we hear talk about penalty rates?
Mr Perrett: You want to cut their penalty rates.
Mr CIOBO: Let me explain to the member for Moreton what your penalty rate changes do. There is a cafe just up the road from me. It used to be open six days a week. Labor brought in their you-beaut penalty rates and promised the workers more money for working longer hours. Do you know what the consequence is? It is now open five days a week. The workers no longer have employment on Saturday, as they used to have, because it is simply too expensive to open and the cafe shuts. That is the great con of the Australian Labor Party. They stand condemned for their poor economic stewardship.
Cybersafety
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (21:34): I rise tonight to inform the House about concerns I have for seniors, regarding their safety and privacy in an increasingly online world. Obviously, the internet has become a major part of our modern lives. Most Australians rely on it for keeping in touch with friends, for paying bills and for doing business, both nationally and internationally. The NBN will help let Australian skills and know-how compete all around the world.
We must ensure that no Australians are left behind as we experience the technological revolution. That is why the Gillard government has invested in the NBN, and $15 million to set up 2,000 internet kiosks for seniors. I have a flyer, with me opening the Broadband for Seniors at the office in Griffith with the APSL president, Frances Nord, and the APSL state secretary, Ian Gordon.
The Broadband for Seniors program has helped thousands more seniors experience the benefits and convenience of the internet. It helps them to gain confidence using computer technology and builds community participation and social inclusion among older Australians. Today, senior Australians are the fastest growing demographic of online users, so you can teach an old dog new tricks—especially if it is an Australian dog.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that more than 60 per cent of Australians aged 55 to 64 use the internet, with more than 30 per cent of those over 65 spending time online. The 2010 Online risk and safety in the digital economy report published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found that older Australians are more likely to use the internet for e-commerce, for research and health information, while younger age groups are more likely to look for music, use social networking sites and seek entertainment through video games.
Mr Ciobo: What do you use them for?
Mr PERRETT: I am not sure about the member for Moncrieff, but I am starting to put one foot in both of those camps in the things that I use the internet for.
The ACMA report also found that internet users over the age of 55 are actually very intensive users. As older Australians get online they are increasingly exposed to online risks such as dating and mass marketing scams—some that particularly target older people.
I have been contacted by seniors in my electorate who have been scammed by these internet pests. These heartless pests prey on the vulnerable, the lonely and those just wanting to do the right thing by their fellow man or woman. I have heard from constituents who are even tricked into sending money overseas through dating schemes, or who responded to phishing emails asking for bank, credit card or other personal details. It has been hard for each of these people to report what has happened to them. Understandably, people who have been scammed often feel embarrassed or ashamed. I can report—in the hope that my wife is not listening—that even she, who has four degrees and who works with computers all the time, said when I came home one day, 'You've got to phone Microsoft. We've got a problem with the computer.' I then had a nice conversation with an Indian gentleman who tried to convince me of where he lived in Sydney. But it turned out that he did not; he was actually trying to get a couple of hundred dollars out of us. It can happen to anybody.
There should be no shame here for my wife or for any senior Australians. For many it is a whole new world of information to understand and they are easily able to be tricked. Unfortunately, it is costing Australians millions of dollars every year. In the report on scam activity in 2010, The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reported that Australians lost more than $63 million from cybercrime, and this was based on losses actually reported to the ACCC. Reported online scams rose from 14,101 in 2009 to 19,074 in 2010, rising exponentially as the NBN is rolled out and more people take up computers, tablets, iPhones and the like.
These figures included online auction and shopping scams, false billing, banking and online account scams, job and employment scams, dating and romance scams and computer prediction software scams. Twenty-three per cent of those who reported scams to the ACCC were 55 years or older, and as the population ages and technology is rolled out that percentage will increase. So this demographic has the highest uptake of computer and internet use and the highest increase in vulnerability to scam activity. Unfortunately, some older Australians have been frightened off the internet because of the stories they hear about the risks online.
That is why the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety, of which I am a member, is investigating cybersafety for senior Australians. It is an important and timely inquiry for the parliament to pursue, and one that I hope will bring forward practical recommendations that help protect the safety and security of senior Australians as they go online. The cybersafety committee involves members from both sides—from the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is chaired by the Labor Senator Catryna Bilyk, and the member for Mitchell is the deputy chair.
Mr Ciobo: A good man.
Mr PERRETT: Yes, he is making a great contribution. This inquiry will investigate the best means to reduce the risks, enhance consumer protection and build online confidence for older internet users. Specifically, the committee is researching the nature, prevalence and level of cybersafety risks and threats experienced by older Australians; how these risks might affect technologies used by senior Australians; the adequacy of current government response and education initiatives aimed specifically at senior Australians; and how we can change laws and policy to improve cybersafety for seniors. The cybersafety committee wants to hear from older Australians, industry experts and other stakeholders to find out what more government can do to build user confidence and to protect Australian consumers. People have until the end of this week to lodge a submission with the inquiry. The fax number is (02)62772219, or they can email jscc@aph.gov.au.
I want to recognise that corporate Australia is taking many steps to help protect seniors online. Telstra, for example, publishes a tip sheet to advise people on how to be cybersafe. It advises us all to change passwords regularly. Do not just put 'moncrieff2013' and change it every three years or something; you have to be a little bit more inventive. Install security software and think before you click on links. For example, one of my followers on Twitter that I saw today says she is—I quote, but not totally—a 'dirty posh girl that loves the thought of people watching her'.
Mr Ciobo: You clicked, didn't you?
Mr PERRETT: No, I did not click, Member for Moncrieff. I am guessing that this follower is not necessarily a reporter at the Fin Review, or even a reader of the Fin Review. So you do need to be careful. Concerning personal information, Telstra also advise:
Be careful about what information you disclose about yourself and others online
I would give that advice to nearly everyone under 25 years old on Facebook.
Don’t respond to offers, deals or requests for your details—independently check the offer
Never send money, credit card, account or other personal details to unsolicited offers
Use a screen name (fake name) in chat rooms
Be wary about face-to-face meeting people you have met online
This is important advice, but I suggest that more needs to be done to ensure that these messages are getting through to Australian seniors. For example, internet providers should send a clear and simple fact sheet to all internet users to ensure they understand the risks and are streetwise enough to avoid them. Obviously prevention is the best cure for this spreading disease.
Cybersafety for seniors is a significant issue in my community, and it will only get worse as scammers and internet pests get more sophisticated in their use of technological rorts. It is my hope that through the committee we can make some recommendations to improve education and protection for seniors online, and I will certainly be going around Moreton to my seniors groups to educate them about the risks that they face.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B.
Main Committee adjourned at 21:4 4