The SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Inbound Cargo Security Enhancement) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia’s aviation security framework is under continuous review to ensure it is responsive to changes in the aviation security environment including the deterrence, detection and prevention of acts of unlawful interference with an aircraft.
It is apparent that at times it may be necessary for Australia to place restrictions on certain cargo being carried on Australian aircraft, or being carried into Australia on foreign-nationality aircraft.
This fact was highlighted on 29 October 2010, when two improvised explosive devices were discovered on board aircraft in Dubai and the United Kingdom.
The devices were hidden in printers and sent from Yemen to the United States as air cargo consignments.
They were intercepted en route following an intelligence tip-off.
Such events show the potential for inbound air cargo to pose an unacceptable security risk to Australians and Australian interests.
While providing for a security framework covering outbound international air cargo, current provisions under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 do not provide specific mitigation measures to counter the threat posed by inbound international air cargo.
The proposed legislative amendment addresses this issue and will ensure that the government has a sound, transparent and effective legal basis to mitigate the threat posed to Australia by international inbound air cargo in the future.
In 2010, responding to the Yemen incident, the government moved to prohibit air cargo originating in, or transiting through, Yemen or Somalia from being carried to Australia.
This was initially achieved through the issuing of Special Security Directions.
However, Special Security Directions only operate for a six-month period as they were deliberately created as a short-term measure, providing an appropriate means to quickly deal with emerging security threats.
Upon their expiration, the effect of the prohibition was continued by requiring relevant aviation industry participants to vary their Transport Security Programs.
Under the current legislation, this is the only way the framework can address lasting threats such as those presented by the 2010 Yemen incident.
While this mechanism has the desired security effect, it is cumbersome and creates an excessive administrative burden, requiring each aircraft operator to manually amend its security program, and for the government to individually assess each amendment.
This bill changes that by introducing a mechanism to quickly and efficiently respond to security threats on a national basis.
The proposed changes allow the government to prohibit all air cargo entering Australian territory, or be limited to a variety of types of cargo, depending on the nature of the threat.
Some of the current examples of the types of cargo that might be regulated are:
Cargo originating from a particular country or countries; or
Cargo packaged in a particular way
This flexibility allows for currently unknown threats to be dealt with effectively and proportionately.
The threat of improvised explosive devices concealed in air cargo is real and the consequence of such a plot succeeding would be catastrophic.
As such, the bill contains a strict liability offence.
The government believes this is an appropriate deterrent against acts or omissions committed by aviation industry participants that may contribute to the success of an attack.
The penalties for an offence under the bill are $34,000 for an aircraft operator and $17,000 for any other aviation industry participant.
These penalties are consistent with similar existing penalties for strict liability offences within the Aviation Transport Security Act.
Another consideration in developing the bill is that lasting prohibitions on cargo have the potential to affect trade and foreign relations.
This bill addresses this by providing an appropriate level of scrutiny, transparency and accountability through the use of a disallowable instrument.
No decision will be taken without consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Trade minister.
The bill makes a technical amendment to the act which arose out of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Act 2011.
The Yemen incident has been a key driver for the strengthening of Australia’s air cargo security measures.
Ideally, all countries throughout the world would secure their own domestic and outbound cargo to a global minimum standard.
However, as this goal remains aspirational, the government must take steps to ensure it has the right tools to take action when needed to protect Australia’s interests.
The security of inbound cargo is a key aspect of the government’s overall aviation security strategy.
The government’s first priority is ensuring the safety and security of Australians and Australian interests.
This bill ensures that the government has a sound, transparent and effective legal basis to mitigate the threat posed to Australia by international inbound air cargo in the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 introduces important amendments to telecommunications legislation to strengthen consumer safeguards and improve the telecommunications co-regulatory framework.
Every year, Australians become more reliant on their telephones and internet connections to underpin their everyday activities, so it is essential that they can have any problems with these services fixed quickly and with minimal fuss.
For this reason the government has taken a number of steps over the past five years, to strengthen consumer safeguards.
For example, we have established the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network to champion the interests of consumers, and bolstered consumer protection laws with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
We have also overseen the revision of vital consumer protection codes including the Mobile Premium Services Code and the Telecommunications Consumer Protections (TCP) Code.
This bill introduces important amendments to further strengthen consumer protections.
The bill enhances the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 by clarifying the meaning of 'cause' in that act, in relation to the party responsible for making a telemarketing call or sending a marketing fax.
This important change provides the industry regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, with more effective enforcement powers in relation to unsolicited telemarketing calls and marketing faxes.
This bill also amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to increase the responsiveness of industry codes to emerging telecommunications issues.
These amendments enable industry codes to be varied, rather than being required to be replaced in their entirety, subject to the approval of the ACMA.
The bill also extends the reimbursement scheme for developing consumer related industry codes to also apply to variations of those codes.
The amendments also improve the transparency and accountability of code development processes, by requiring submissions and draft codes to be published on the code developer's website.
The bill also introduces amendments developed in response to recommendations of a 2012 review of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) scheme.
These amendments aim to provide greater regulatory clarity around the TIO's role and its expected standards of operation.
The bill requires the TIO scheme to comply with standards determined by legislative instrument made by the minister, and for the scheme to be independently reviewed.
Such reviews must provide for consultation with the public, the TIO and the ACMA.
A final review report must be published on the TIO's website, and the TIO must respond to any review recommendations within six months of receiving the report.
The amendments in the bill ensure that the TIO scheme continues to operate as a best practice alternative dispute resolution scheme for the telecommunications industry.
The amendments in the bill have the support of industry, the industry regulator, consumer advocates and other industry stakeholders.
The passage of the bill reinforces the government's commitment to ensuring the interests of consumers are maintained and the level of community safeguards is appropriate in a telecommunications environment which is continually changing and converging.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:10): by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended for this sitting.
For the benefit of members, in the usual way I will try to keep the House informed as to what is happening in the other place and a timetable for what time we might finish this evening.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Stephen Smith.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (09:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2006 the parliament enacted legislation amending the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to establish the Australian Military Court by passing the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The Australian Military Court commenced its work in 2007.
In August 2009, in Lane v Morrison, the High Court decided that the legislation was unconstitutional as it sought to confer on the court jurisdiction to exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth, without the court conforming to chapter III of the Constitution. The provisions were declared invalid.
To ensure continuity of Australia's military justice system, the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009 was passed in September of that year. That act amended the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to provide an interim response to the High Court decision in Lane v Morrison by returning to the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court.
The reinstatement of the pre-2007 military justice system was to allow for the consideration and development of options for a permanent military justice system which would meet the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution and therefore be constitutional.
The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009 provided a tenure of up to two years for the Chief Judge Advocate and the judge advocates. This was extended for a further two years by the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Act 2011, which is due to expire in September 2013.
Legislation to establish a constitutionally sound Military Court of Australia was introduced into the 42nd Parliament, but lapsed when that parliament was prorogued for the 2010 election.
On 21 June 2012, the Attorney-General introduced the Military Court of Australia Bill 2012, which would establish the Military Court of Australia under chapter III of the Constitution and provide for, among other things, the structure, jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the court.
The Military Court of Australia Bill 2012, and its companion bill providing transitional arrangements and making amendments consequential to the creation of the Military Court of Australia, are still being considered by the parliament. The bills were the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which reported on the bills in October 2012. The committee recommended the bills be passed.
A minority report recommended two amendments:
Australian Defence Force (ADF) members be given the right to trial by jury for services offences punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding 12 months; and
ADF reservists and standby reservists be permitted to sit as judges on the Military Court to the extent permitted by chapter III of the Constitution.
These dissenting recommendations are the subject of discussion between the government and relevant senators.
While the military court bills remain before the parliament, it is prudent to introduce the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013 to continue the appointment, remuneration and entitlement arrangements for the Chief Judge Advocate and the full-time Judge Advocate for an additional two years, or until the Minister for Defence declares, by legislative instrument, a specified day to be a termination day, whichever is sooner.
This will ensure the continuity of these key military justice appointments until legislation establishing the Military Court of Australia commences and is fully operational.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dreyfus.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (09:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill establishes sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status as protected grounds of discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.
For the past 40 years, federal Labor governments have actively promoted principles of fairness and equality by enacting the sex, disability and racial discrimination acts, and establishing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (now called the Australian Human Rights Commission).
This government has added a new chapter by acting to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and sex and gender diverse people across Commonwealth laws and policies. In 2009, the government amended 85 Commonwealth laws to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in areas ranging from taxation to immigration and family law to superannuation. These amendments ensured that same-sex relationships are treated in the same way as different sex de facto relationships for the purposes of Commonwealth entitlements and programs.
And again, in 2011, the government introduced new guidelines to make it easier for sex and gender diverse people to get a passport in their preferred gender. Under the guidelines, sex reassignment surgery is no longer a prerequisite to issue a passport in a person's preferred gender.
In 2012, the government announced that for the first time Australians seeking to enter into a same-sex marriage overseas will be able to apply for a Certificate of No Impediment to marriage. This important change allows same-sex couples to take part in overseas marriage ceremonies, and to be considered married according to the laws of that country.
Labor is rightly proud of its record to advance the rights of all Australians—but more needs to be done. Members of Australia's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities continue to experience high levels of discrimination. However, there is currently little protection in federal law from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
That is why this government committed to introduce sexual orientation and gender identity as protected grounds of discrimination at the federal level. This bill honours that long-standing Labor commitment.
These proposed new protections were included in the exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which was released in November 2012. That draft bill aimed to make the unnecessarily complex system of federal anti-discrimination laws clearer, simpler and more effective.
The government always understood that this would be a long, considered process. It has been careful to consult through each stage of legislative development, from a discussion paper process, through the drafting and release of the draft bill, and referral to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report.
The committee inquiry was highly successful in fostering public debate and discussion about the benefits of anti-discrimination laws and the most effective ways to protect Australians against discrimination—as reflected by the 595 individual submissions from organisations and individuals around the country.
While some aspects of the public debate veered towards scaremongering, the inquiry served its purpose in drawing out community concerns and identifying aspects of the bill that warranted amendment.
I reiterate my thanks to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for actively seeking the public's views, considering the evidence put before it, and recommending ways to amend the bill to achieve the government's objectives and strengthen Australia's anti-discrimination framework.
This is a worthy but complex project, and it is important that we get it right. That means taking the time to carefully consider the many recommendations put forward by the committee and submitters to the inquiry, developing a comprehensive government response, drafting a final bill and fully debating it in this place.
It was reassuring that the committee's report demonstrated that all parties agree on one issue—the pressing need for protection from discrimination for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community at the federal level. To that end I acknowledge the coalition senators' support for a key Labor commitment.
This reform is too important to suffer any further delay through its connection to the wider consolidation project.
It is in this context that I am very pleased to introduce the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013.
The bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to introduce new protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. These reforms are an important first stage to have in place while the government considers in detail the content and form of a second stage of the consolidation of the Commonwealth anti-discrimination acts. The government considers that the Sex Discrimination Act is the most appropriate vehicle within the existing acts to contain these new protections.
A separate ground of intersex status is also introduced as a result of the consultations on the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill and the recommendations of the Senate committee. People who are intersex can face many of the same issues that are sought to be addressed through the introduction of the ground of gender identity.
However, including the separate ground of intersex status recognises that whether a person is intersex is a biological characteristic and not an identity. The definitions in the bill acknowledge this reality but do not create a third sex in any sense.
The bill also amends the existing ground of 'marital status' to 'marital or relationship status' to provide protection from discrimination for same-sex de facto couples, who are currently excluded from the definition of 'marital status'.
The amendments made by this bill will insert definitions for 'sexual orientation', 'gender identity' and 'intersex status'. The government has accepted the feedback from key groups and the wider community during the consultation on the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill to ensure the definitions are meaningful and provide the necessary protection. In particular, the government has adopted the definitions of 'gender identity' and 'intersex status' as recommended by the Senate committee.
The amendments will provide that discrimination on these new grounds is unlawful in the same areas of life as for other grounds already covered by the Sex Discrimination Act. These include: areas of work, education, goods, services and facilities, accommodation, land, clubs, and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs.
The introduction of the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status into the Sex Discrimination Act, in conjunction with the existing complaints provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, will provide a complaints mechanism for people who consider they have been discriminated against on these bases. The Australian Human Rights Commission will be able to investigate and attempt to conciliate such complaints.
The bill also amends existing exemptions as appropriate to reflect the new grounds. This includes exemptions for religious bodies in relation to employment and the provision of education that have been in place for many years. These exemptions will continue under this bill and encompass the new grounds.
The bill also includes necessary consequential amendments to confirm conduct is not unlawful when:
Done in compliance with the Commonwealth Marriage Act, to ensure this legislation does not affect current law on same-sex marriage
Done in compliance with prescribed Commonwealth, state or territory laws, and
It constitutes a request for information and keeping of records in relation to sex and/or gender, to minimise the regulatory impact of the amendments.
Finally, the bill will ensure that the Australian Human Rights Commission's powers to produce reports, guidelines, and intervene in proceedings appropriately extend to the new grounds of discrimination.
I welcome the support of all parties to these amendments and urge all members to pass the bill during this parliamentary term so as to implement this very necessary reform. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dreyfus.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (09:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased today to introduce the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013.
This Labor government is committed to building and maintaining a culture of transparency. An open and transparent government is a key feature of a healthy democracy.
That is why we introduced the most significant pro-disclosure reforms to the Freedom of Information Act since its commencement decades ago, removing application fees and introducing free decision-making time for journalists. We also established the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, to provide a free, easy to access forum for review of freedom of information decisions.
And that is why we are introducing legislation to establish a public interest disclosure scheme and, in doing so, we are delivering on one of our election commitments.
It was my privilege to chair the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which, in February 2009, reported on a preferred model for legislation to protect whistleblowers within the Australian government public sector. The bill the government is introducing today implements the government response to that report.
Blowing the whistle, or speaking out against suspected wrongdoing in the workplace, can be a risky course of action. At present, the Commonwealth is the only Australian jurisdiction without dedicated legislation to facilitate the making of public interest disclosures and protect those who make them.
Whistleblowers may risk subtle or more direct forms of workplace discrimination or harassment. They can be exposed to serious civil or criminal liability if they report misconduct through the wrong channels.
This bill will encourage a pro-disclosure culture by facilitating disclosure and investigation of wrongdoing and maladministration in the Commonwealth public sector. In doing so, it will promote the integrity and accountability of the Australian government public sector. It builds on practices established in the Australian Public Service for more than a dozen years but which have not been applied elsewhere in the Commonwealth public sector.
The bill does this by establishing a comprehensive framework for public interest disclosures in the Australian government public sector. It is the first stand-alone protection scheme at the federal level.
We have aimed for best practice legislation that will apply broadly across the entire Commonwealth public sector. This has required considerable consultation across government to provide a robust framework that will operate effectively.
There are three key aspects to this framework. The first is to encourage and facilitate all Commonwealth public officials to report suspected wrongdoing. The second is to make sure that reports of suspected wrongdoing are properly handled by agencies and in a reasonable time frame. The third is that bill protects public officials who report suspected wrongdoing from adverse consequences as a result of reporting their concerns.
The bill seeks to foster a culture in the Australian government public sector which supports reporting wrongdoing, makes sure that there are adequate responses by agencies to claims of wrongdoing and protects those who report wrongdoing.
A public official who is concerned about possible misconduct will, under this scheme, be able to report the matter to their own agency or make a disclosure direct to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, or to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security if the disclosure concerns the conduct of an intelligence agency. The scheme will be flexible to allow disclosures to be transferred to other agencies if the alleged conduct relates to another agency.
The scheme will also permit disclosures to be made under the scheme directly to other Commonwealth agencies that have power to investigate wrongdoing of the kind disclosed. The bill provides for investigative agencies, in addition to the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, to be prescribed in rules to be made under the act.
Prescribed investigative agencies will be able to undertake investigations under their own statutory frameworks. In these circumstances the official who reports the matter will have the protections of the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme provided by this bill.
The emphasis of the scheme is on disclosures of wrongdoing being reported to and investigated within government. This emphasis is designed to ensure that problems are identified and rectified. The bill establishes a scheme with clear procedures for officials to follow when a disclosure of suspected wrongdoing is reported.
Agencies will be obliged to investigate public interest disclosures and to ensure that appropriate action is taken in response to any recommendations that are made following an inquiry and report. The bill permits a principal officer not to investigate a disclosure in some circumstances, for example where the disclosure is lacking in substance or relates to conduct that has already been investigated.
A person who remains dissatisfied with the handling by an agency of a public interest disclosure they have made may make a complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976 or, if the conduct relates to an intelligence agency, to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security under the Inspector-General of Intelligence Act 1986.
The Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner will continue to have the role of inquiring into allegations of breaches of the code of conduct by Australian Public Service employees where the discloser is not satisfied with the outcome of an agency's own investigation.
Where a public official has reported suspected wrongdoing and considers that the investigation or the response is inadequate, they will be able to make their concerns public where that disclosure is not contrary to the public interest and where certain other criteria are met.
This option of public disclosure will not be available when the conduct in question relates to an intelligence agency, nor can there be public disclosure of any information which comprises intelligence or sensitive law enforcement information.
The risk that very sensitive information will be improperly or unwittingly publicly disclosed supports this approach. The government considers that the right of complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who is an independent statutory office holder, provides adequate assurance that there will be proper review of handling of disclosures of this kind.
The bill will also make provision for public disclosure where the disclosure concerns a substantial and imminent danger to health and safety.
Coming forward to report concerns in a workplace can take courage. Speaking up about illegal, immoral or improper practices should be supported as a positive contribution to the integrity of an organisation. The bill provides extensive protections to public officials who report suspected wrongdoing.
An individual who makes a public interest disclosure in accordance with the provisions of this bill will not be subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making the disclosure. Should there be unlawful reprisal action against a person who has made a qualifying disclosure, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court will be able to make remedial orders, including for injunctive relief, an apology and compensation.
A person making a disclosure and suffering reprisals as a result would have the option of seeking remedies under either the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, but not both.
The bill includes offences to prevent victimisation of disclosers and to protect their identity. Principal officers of agencies will have obligations to take reasonable steps to protect officials and their agencies from detriment arising from public interest disclosures they have made.
The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have oversight functions of the scheme. The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will assist agencies with their compliance with the scheme, including through awareness programs and standards to be issued by the Ombudsman addressing key elements of the scheme. The government has provided funding to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for their roles under the proposed scheme.
Given the complex nature of the issue I also consider that consultation should continue on the content and structure of the bill. If it becomes clear that the whistleblower scheme would benefit from legislative amendment I will be happy to bring them forward if this bill progresses.
The government will also be introducing a bill to make consequential amendments in support of the scheme in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. This bill will include amendments to repeal the current whistleblower protection provisions in the Public Service Act 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999. This change is to avoid duplication.
The Public Interest Disclosure Bill will provide a single comprehensive scheme to support inquiry into wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector and those who report it.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (09:36): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill continues the government's commitment to ensuring Aboriginal people's ongoing connection to their land is recognised by scheduling further parcels of land as Aboriginal land. It will benefit traditional owners, residents and business operators in Jabiru and the wider Kakadu region in the Northern Territory. Importantly, it will also provide traditional owners with significant economic development opportunities.
The bill adds the existing Jabiru town land and certain adjacent portions of Northern Territory land to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory Act 1976. Related amendments are made to the Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
These amendments arise from the landmark agreement struck in November 2009 to resolve the Jabiru native title claim, which is the longest-running native title claim in the history of the Northern Territory. The intention of this measure is to give effect to the settlement agreement reached between the parties to the native title claim. Importantly, this bill recognises the traditional ownership of Jabiru by the Mirarr people.
The amendments relating to Jabiru allow for the transfer of ownership of the claimed land from the Director of National Parks to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust, which will hold the land in trust for its traditional owners. The Jabiru town land and certain adjacent portions of Northern Territory land will be scheduled under the land rights legislation to enable the land to be granted as Aboriginal land to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust. The bill also provides that the land will not be granted as Aboriginal land until leaseback arrangements for the Jabiru town land and for the two adjacent non-township portions are put in place.
The Mirarr traditional owners have agreed to lease back the Jabiru land immediately through long-term leases to be granted to the Director of National Parks, the Northern Territory and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation nominated by the Northern Land Council. The two adjacent portions of land will also be leased to the Director of National Parks.
The land that will be scheduled by this bill will remain part of Kakadu National Park and the Kakadu World Heritage area. The bill provides for the preservation of Kakadu's World Heritage and other values in relation to the town. It requires the leases granted to the Northern Territory and the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation to be consistent with the protection of those World Heritage and other natural and cultural values.
The land to be leased to the Director of National Parks will be added to the director's existing lease of adjacent parklands from the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust.
The bill also makes amendments to the Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 relating to the proper development of Jabiru into the future in accordance with the leases, the management plan for Kakadu and the town plan approved by the Director of National Parks.
Jabiru has established itself as a thriving township that services Kakadu National Park as a tourist destination as well as the nearby Ranger uranium mine. Business operators in Jabiru have, however, expressed legitimate concerns that given the expiration of the current head lease in 2021, the future tenure arrangements for Jabiru are unclear. This has resulted in a reluctance to invest in the town. This bill will provide for long-term certainty and security of land tenure for Jabiru. Importantly, for current interest holders in Jabiru this bill ensures that existing leases, sub leases and other interests will be preserved following transfer of ownership to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust.
This bill builds on the government's commitments to hand over land in the Northern Territory to its traditional owners. Since 2007 the Australian government has handed back 42,225 square kilometres of land under the Land Rights Act. This is 12 times the area of land handed back between 2002 and 2007. The government is very pleased to be able to further the resolution of the Jabiru native title claim by introducing this bill.
The bill also adds a further parcel of land for Patta to schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory act 1976. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2009 Measures) Act 2010 previously inserted five portions of land known as Patta in the Northern Territory into schedule 1. This new amendment will enable the further parcel of land to be granted to the relevant Aboriginal Land Trust.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Clause 3, page 4 (lines 5 to 7), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:
(a) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006 ([2008] ATS 12); and
(2) Clause 3, page 4 (line 28), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (i) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to:
(i) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1980] ATS 23); and
(ii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1976] ATS 5); and
(iii) the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 ([1991] ATS 4); and
(iv) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women done at New York on 18 December 1979 ([1983] ATS 9); and
(v) the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination done at New York on 21 December 1965 ([1975] ATS 40).
Note: In 2013, the text of a Convention or Covenant in the Australian Treaty Series was accessible through the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).
(3) Clause 3, page 5 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; and (d) the provision of services by other agencies, Departments or organisations and the need for interaction between the provision of mainstream services and the provision of supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
(4) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 19), after subclause (12), insert:
(13) The role of advocacy in representing the interests of people with disability is to be acknowledged and respected, recognising that advocacy supports people with disability by:
(a) promoting their independence and social and economic participation; and
(b) promoting choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports; and
(c) maximising independent lifestyles of people with disability and their full inclusion in the mainstream community.
(5) Clause 4, page 6 (line 20), omit "(13)", substitute "(14)".
(6) Clause 4, page 6 (line 24), omit "(14)", substitute "(15)".
(7) Clause 4, page 6 (line 27), omit "(14A)", substitute "(16)".
(8) Clause 4, page 6 (line 29), omit "(15)", substitute "(17)".
(9) Clause 5, page 7 (line 18), after "circumstances", insert ", and the gender,".
(10) Clause 9, page 12 (lines 7 to 13), omit the definition of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
(11) Clause 26, page 29 (lines 13 to 16), omit subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) undergo, whether or not at a particular place, a medical, psychiatric, psychological or other examination, conducted by an appropriately qualified person, and provide to the CEO the report, in the approved form, of the person who conducts the examination.
(12) Clause 36, page 40 (lines 23 to 26), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) undergo, whether or not at a particular place, a medical, psychiatric, psychological or other examination, conducted by an appropriately qualified person, and provide to the CEO the report, in the approved form, of the person who conducts the examination.
(13) Clause 50, page 49 (lines 1 to 4), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) undergo, whether or not at a particular place, a medical, psychiatric, psychological or other examination, conducted by an appropriately qualified person, and provide to the CEO the report, in the approved form, of the person who conducts the examination.
(14) Clause 73, page 64 (line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (d) processes to deal with conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest.
(15) Clause 73, page 64 (after line 19), after paragraph (2)(d), insert:
(da) obligations relating to dealing with conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest; and
(16) Clause 85, page 75 (lines 9 and 10), omit "a medical, psychiatric or psychological".
(17) Clause 147, page 119 (lines 8 to 26), omit subclause (5), substitute:
Membership requirements
(5) In appointing the members of the Advisory Council, the Minister must:
(a) have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Advisory Council reflecting the diversity of people with disability; and
(b) ensure that all members are persons with skills, experience or knowledge that will help the Advisory Council perform its function; and
(c) ensure that:
(i) a majority of the members are people with disability; and
(ii) at least 2 of the members are carers of people with disability; and
(iii) at least one of the members is a person who has skills, experience or knowledge in relation to disability in rural or regional areas; and
(iv) at least one of the members is a person who has skills, experience or knowledge in the supply of equipment, or the provision of services, to people with disability.
Note: A particular member may meet one or more of the conditions in subparagraphs (5)(c)(ii), (iii) and (iv).
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (09:43): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments have been made to this bill in the Senate in response to recommendations in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill. Many of the report's recommendations were addressed in amendments already passed by the House of Representatives, and I am pleased to say that the Senate's amendments will further enhance the bill.
The amended bill that reflects Australia's international human rights obligations, improves the scheme's principles and explicitly recognises in the bill's principles and objects the importance of advocacy and of the National Disability Insurance Scheme interacting with mainstream server systems.
The bill, when passed by this House in a few moments, will establish the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I do thank all members of this parliament for their contribution to the consideration of this bill in both houses of parliament.
I think we all know that this bill is a truly historic reform for our country. It will change the lives of people with disability and their families and carers. It is the most significant social reform to be instituted in this country since the introduction of Medicare. I thank people with disability, their families and carers, who have done so much to make this change happen. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (09:44): As I foreshadowed when this bill was last in this place, it was likely there would be further amendments made in the Senate as a result of the inquiry by the Senate into the bill—and those amendments have now come forward having been passed in the Senate.
I indicate to the House that the coalition supports the amendments, and therefore supports this final passage of the bill through this place—and, therefore, the introduction into law, once the formalities the Governor-General undertakes have been completed.
Since this is the last occasion to say something more broadly about the National Disability Insurance Scheme may I say that this is something which the coalition wholeheartedly endorses. In the spirit of bipartisanship we have supported the government in this measure. And can I say something that may be rarely heard from this side of the dispatch box—that is, I congratulate the government for having brought this forward. This is something which is important for all Australians, not just those who have disability but all those whose lives have been touched by people with disability. I suspect that many people in this place, and many people in the wider Australian community, are in that situation themselves. This is something which a humane country, a First World country such as Australia, should be able to put in place. We can all regret that it has taken so long, but it is coming to fruition with the final passage of this bill and it is something we all support.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (09:46): In the same spirit of bipartisanship just demonstrated by the member for Menzies can I congratulate the minister on behalf of the Nationals as well. I also recognise, with his presence in the chamber, the former Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services, the member for Maribyrnong, who I believe has been an outstanding advocate in this place for people with disabilities and their carers, and who I believe contributed significantly to moving this debate forward at a time when it was possible it may have stalled. I congratulate him in his presence and I congratulate the government for the steps it has taken today.
Question agreed to.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (09:47): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Labor government fundamentally believes that the prosperity of Australia relies largely upon the creation of productive value in Australian workplaces and enterprises.
This Labor government is committed to ensuring that all Australians have the opportunity to find a job—in fact a good job, with regular hours, reasonable pay and some control over the tasks they perform at work. This Labor government encourages productive, collaborative, innovative, profitable, safe workplaces.
The Fair Work Act considers the context of productivity in its objectives. There have been some unsupported opinions that the Fair Work Act has had a negative impact on productivity.
It is important that the record is set straight in the parliament about why the allegations against the act do not stand up to scrutiny.
The independent and expert Fair Work Act Review Panel found the Fair Work Act is operating as intended and in accordance with the objects of the legislation, which include productivity and economic growth.
The panel confirmed that the act does not negatively impact productivity growth. This conclusion is confirmed by the independent data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Over the last five quarters, annual productivity growth has been above its historical average.
Labour productivity in the market sector grew by 2.9 per cent in 2011-12, a significant improvement over labour productivity growth in the previous year and well above the historical average of 2.2 per cent per annum since 1994-95.
While productivity estimates can be volatile, productivity growth in the last year has been fairly rapid in the context of a longer-term slowdown since the 1990s.
In fact, productivity growth under the Fair Work Act is superior to that under previous workplace relations regimes. Indeed, productivity growth under our Fair Work Act is around triple the rate than that experienced under the former coalition government's disastrous and unlamented Work Choices.
This demonstrates that those who seek to argue that there is a 'productivity problem' with the Fair Work legislation—and argue this as justification for adopting a more draconian workplace relations regime—are arguing vagrant opinions with no visible means of support.
This government installed a legislative framework to improve productivity with a focus on protecting terms and conditions through dialogue and negotiation at the enterprise level.
While it would be wrong to suggest the Fair Work Act alone is solely or largely responsible for this productivity performance, it is clearly a fallacy to suggest that the act has been a drag on our productivity performance.
Pleasingly, the evidence on Australia's economic performance is compelling: there are more Australians in work in than ever before and our jobs growth is at least twice as fast as any of the major advanced economies. Productivity is up, wages growth is steady but restrained and jobs are being created—indeed, some 480 jobs a day since Labor was elected—economic growth is up, interest rates are down and inflation is down. Importantly, the markets are up and superannuation returns are up—and, indeed, mandatory contributions to our superannuation system will increase. We are also witnessing record levels of capital expenditure over the coming year.
In addition, industrial disputation is down. In fact, it is one-third of the rate that we saw under the previous government; indeed, one-fifth of the rate in the building and construction industry that we saw under the previous government.
Labor believes that productivity is not about cutting wages or entitlements. We do not support a workplace relations vision that lets important protections be undermined through the false flag of a 'race to the bottom' brand of flexibility.
We understand that that the drivers of productivity improvement are at the enterprise level and they are stimulated by innovation and creativity.
We understand that engagement at all levels of the enterprise needs to occur not just during bargaining or the reaching of an agreement or an employment contract periodically every three or four years, but on a day-by-day basis.
When I think what every company, every employer and every work site I have visited over the last 20 years has taught me, it is the potential for greatness that Australian people—employers and employees, individuals—carry within them. Those thousands of workplaces I have been privileged to witness showed me the limitless capacity of Australian workers and Australian businesses—and, thus, the limitless potential of the Australian economy and Australian society.
The Fair Work Act promotes this engagement.
That is why this government is funding the creation of the Centre for Workplace Leadership to create higher performing workplaces and stronger leadership capability in Australian workplaces.
Engaged employees are productive employees.
It is also why one of the amendments in this bill, reflecting recommendation 1 of the review panel is to include in the functions of the Fair Work Commission that it should promote cooperative and productive workplace relations.
This government has also done more to support modern Australians balance their work and life—perhaps more than predecessor governments.
We believe that a balanced framework that supports cooperative and productive workplace relations and promotes economic prosperity and social inclusion for all is a good goal.
This government has established a strong safety net comprising the National Employment Standards and modern awards, providing all employees covered by federal law with clear, comprehensive and enforceable minimum terms and conditions of employment.
It was this government that responded to the needs of carers and parents by providing employees with a right to request flexible work arrangements to help them balance that ongoing competition between work and family life for the first time.
It was this government that provided more flexible parental leave arrangements through the Fair Work Act, as well as paid parental leave and dad and partner pay.
And that is why, as part of this bill, the government is seeking to ensure that work at hours which are not family friendly are fairly remunerated. This will be done by amending the modern awards objective to ensure that the Fair Work Commission, in carrying out its role, must take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working outside normal hours, such as employees working overtime or on weekends.
The government recognises that there are certain groups that may require additional support to balance work and life, particularly those employees with special caring responsibilities.
Through the Fair Work Act review all stakeholders, be they employers and employees, employer organisations or unions, and many others were given the opportunity to respond to the question: is the current legislation working and what can we change to ensure this legislation is meeting its purpose?
The Fair Work Act review came after the extensive public consultation and drafting process we completed for the Fair Work Act:
We released our policy proposals in workplace relations in April 2007 before the 2007 November election. We were not afraid to put forward our policies and let the electorate examine them. We provided further detail of our policy proposals in August that year;
We released exposure draft legislation of the National Employment Standards; and
We engaged with employee and employer representatives through the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council, through the Small Business Working Group and consultation directly with employers, employees and unions.
This is the consultative, open and engaged model I have continued as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.
This bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, represents our further response to the Fair Work Act review recommendations, but it also represents key policy priorities of a Labor government.
The bill includes new family friendly arrangements such as further flexibility in relation to unpaid parental leave, the right for pregnant women to transfer to a safe job and an expanded right to request flexible working arrangements including for working parents, for workers with caring responsibilities, workers who are of mature age or who have a disability and indeed those who are the victims suffering family violence.
The bill also includes new consultative requirements to recognise employees do have a world outside of work They do have family responsibilities which, when changes to employees' rosters and regular working hours are proposed, will have an impact.
In response to recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment inquiry into bullying, the bill introduces a long-overdue remedy for victims being bullied at work to seek a timely recourse through the Fair Work Commission.
Bullying is a real menace in our workplaces that costs the economy as it damages productivity. Most tragically, it hurts people—sometimes with tragic, fatal consequences, as my friends the Panlocks have learned, to their lasting grief.
Finally the bill provides for reforms to the right of entry regime in response to the independent fair work review panel recommendations, with amendments to better balance unions being able to represent their members professionally with the need for employers to go about their business productively and profitably.
The measures in this bill are entirely consistent with the objective of the Fair Work Act to support cooperative and productive workplace relations.
Family friendly arrangements
The proposed family friendly amendments will help parents balance their family and work commitments.
The first amendment we are proposing will increase the amount of concurrent unpaid parental leave from three weeks to eight weeks. In addition, the eight-week period of concurrent leave will be able to be taken in separate blocks, of no less than two weeks, at any time during the first 12 months after the birth of the child.
At present concurrent leave can only be taken at the time of the birth or placement of a child. These changes will provide greater flexibility for parents in responding to the caring needs of their new child and better align with dad and partner pay, which can be accessed at any time during the first wonderful 12 months after the birth of a child.
The bill also contains two amendments aimed at ensuring the safety and wellbeing of pregnant employees.
The first of these will implement the independent review panel's recommendation that any unpaid special maternity leave taken by a pregnant employee should not reduce that employee's entitlement to unpaid parental leave. Time taken off for a difficult pregnancy should not, therefore, be deducted from the time in which parental leave is available.
Special maternity leave is provided in circumstances such as a woman suffering a pregnancy related illness. Why should an employee be penalised because they are forced to take special maternity leave as a result of circumstances outside their control?
The second amendment is specifically aimed at protecting the safety of pregnant employees at the workplace. At present there is an express right in the Fair Work Act for a pregnant employee to transfer to a safe job where they can provide evidence that they cannot continue in their usual role due to an illness or risk arising from their pregnancy.
But that right only exists for pregnant workers who have served 12 months' service, amongst other things. We are proposing to ensure that employees who have less than 12 months' service at the time of birth the right to transfer to a safe job. Where no safe job is available, the employee in this situation would be eligible for unpaid no safe job leave.
This Labor government was the first government to introduce a legislated right to request flexible working arrangements in 2009 to allow workers to care for a child under school age or a child under 18 years with a disability.
The independent review panel's report found that the right to request provisions are beneficial to both employees and employers, and a recent report from the Fair Work Commission's general manager found that over 90 per cent of requests for flexible working arrangements were granted by employers.
The review panel recommended that the right be extended to a larger range of workers, including those with caring responsibilities.
This bill implements that recommendation by providing the right to request flexible working arrangements to:
all employees with caring responsibilities;
an employee who is a parent, or has responsibility for the care, of a child of school age;
employees who have a disability;
employees aged 55 years or over;
employees who are victims of domestic violence;
employees providing personal care, support and assistance to a member of their immediate family, or a member of their household, who requires support because the individual is experiencing family violence; and
an employee returning from parental leave having the explicit right to request part time work.
This bill will also introduce new rostering protections.
We all arrange our lives around work commitments, so when work rosters change at short notice there can be an impact not just on our work life, but on all our other arrangements. The unilateral imposition of changed rosters and working hours can cause particular hardship for people who have family caring responsibilities.
The amendments will place an obligation on employers to provide employees with information about changes to their roster or hours of work and consult with employees on the impact any changes will have, including on the employees' family and caring arrangements.
Employers must then consider any views the employees have about how the change will impact them before implementing any changes.
The proposed approach will ensure that when decisions on rostering and working conditions are made, they involve a consideration of the needs of both employers and employees.
The dispute resolution mechanisms of relevant workplace instruments will continue to apply in relation to consultation obligations in awards and enterprise agreements, including these new consultation requirements.
Anti-bullying
All Australian workers have a right to return safely home from work.
All Australian workers have a right to a safe and healthy workplace that is free from bullying.
Last year, the government initiated a parliamentary inquiry, chaired by the member for Kingston, into workplace bullying in response to community concerns about the impact of bullying across Australian workplaces and industries.
The committee was overwhelmed as over 300 individuals and organisations gave evidence to the inquiry about the damaging, and in many cases, long-lasting effects of bullying.
The evidence to the inquiry was overwhelming that the status quo of protection for Australians against workplace bullying is manifestly inadequate at protecting vulnerable workers.
For workers, bullying causes physical and psychological injuries, a loss of enjoyment and satisfaction from work and, in some cases, the loss of a job or future career opportunities.
For employers, workplace bullying reduces employee morale and productivity, increases absenteeism and staff turnover, increases workers' compensation costs and results in a loss of business reputation.
On 12 February 2013, I tabled the government's response to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment entitled Workplace Bullying "We just want it to stop".
The committee made 23 recommendations to eliminate and prevent bullying in the workplace and to support employees and employers to respond more effectively to allegations of bullying.
One of the key issues highlighted by the committee was the difficulty people face in trying to find a speedy way to make the bullying stop so that they do not suffer further harm or injury.
The committee recommended that the government provide an individual right of recourse to provide a new and timely mechanism to help people resolve bullying matters quickly and inexpensively, and before worse things can happen.
This bill provides that a worker who has been bullied at work will be able to make an application to the Fair Work Commission for assistance to resolve the bullying.
The bill defines 'bullying' as repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker, or a group of workers of which the individual is a member, that creates a risk to health and safety.
Importantly, the bill expressly states that reasonable management action conducted in a reasonable manner is not bullying.
To support the timely resolution of matters, the Fair Work Commission will be required to commence to deal with a matter within 14 days of an application being made. This may include seeking further information from the parties, conducting a conference to try and resolve matter, or holding a hearing.
Where a worker has been bullied and the matter cannot be resolved between the parties, the Fair Work Commission will have the overdue power to make an order to prevent bullying in the workplace in the future. While the commission will be able to make a range of orders, this will not include being able to make an order for compensation.
Breaches of an order made by the commission will attract a maximum penalty of 60 penalty units.
This bill is designed to complement, not replace, existing work health and safety obligations on employers and workers and the work done by work health and safety regulators.
But we need this new individual right of recourse to encourage early intervention to stop the bullying, to help people resume normal working relationships, and to prevent further episodes of bullying in the workplace into the future.
Right of entry
The last set of changes in the bill relate to right of entry.
As a government we believe in freedom of association.
We believe that people have a right to choose to belong or not to belong to a union.
We believe that the vast majority of registered organisations, trade unions and member organisations are democratic and accountable to their members. We also believe, fundamentally, that anyone in a position of trust or responsibility in a registered organisation must comply with the law.
There are clear rules about right of entry in the Fair Work Act.
The government's policy intention when setting those rules and introducing the amendments in this bill is to balance the right of employers to go about their business without undue interference; to balance it, though, with the democratic right, the right of employees in a functioning democracy, to be represented in their workplace and to participate in discussions with unions at appropriate times.
In almost all cases entry to workplaces by permit holders involves no disruption to an enterprise's operation. The review panel, however, was concerned that in some workplaces the frequency of visits by some unions was imposing a significant burden on employers in dealing with those visits.
It therefore recommended that the Fair Work Commission should have greater powers to deal with the disputes about frequency of right of entry visits to a workplace.
The bill will implement that recommendation and give the Fair Work Commission the capacity to deal with disputes about the frequency of visits to hold discussions. The Fair Work Commission will be able to make any order it considers appropriate if satisfied that the frequency of visits by a permit holder or permit holders of the one union would require an unreasonable diversion of the occupier's critical resources.
The bill will also address the problem identified by the review panel in regard to disputes over the location for interviews and discussions between the right of entry permit holders and eligible employees. In the vast majority of cases permit holders and employers agree on a suitable location for such visits without conflict.
In some workplaces however, evidence presented to the review panel showed that some employers had dictated that rooms be used which would discourage or intimidate employees from meeting with the union.
Permit holders are permitted under the act to hold discussions with workers during mealtimes and other breaks. It is reasonable that, in clarifying the rules about location, we provide for the discussions, which are permitted during people's work time, to occur in the locations where workers ordinarily spend their meal time.
The bill therefore clarifies that in the instances where a reasonable location for discussions cannot be agreed between the parties the discussions will be held in any room or area in which meal or other breaks are ordinarily taken by employees.
Permit holders will continue to be required to comply with an occupier's reasonable request to take a particular route to reach the room or the area where the discussions are to be held. The requirement that such a request by an employer will not be unreasonable only because it is not the route that the permit holder would have chosen is retained in this bill.
The current conduct rules applying to permit holders, occupiers and employers in respect of right of entry will continue unchanged.
The Fair Work Commission will maintain its powers to restrict the rights of an organisation or permit holder that has misused their entry rights.
This government believes all Australian workers, regardless of the location of their workplace, have a right to union representation and that there should be fair access to these workers that unions are entitled to represent. For this reason the bill will introduce an obligation on an employer to facilitate access to travel and accommodation for permit holders to access certain remote locations where access can only occur by the employer assisting with transport or accommodation.
These requirements will apply only where premises are not reasonably accessible by transport other than that provided by the occupier of the premises or that the nature of the premises means the permit holder is required to stay overnight and no accommodation other than that provided by the occupier is reasonably available.
To ensure that the rights of employees and unions are balanced with the need of the employer to carry on their business without undue interference, this obligation will not apply if it would cause the occupier undue inconvenience. Furthermore, a permit holder or a union must make a request for transport or accommodation in a reasonable period of time before that transport and/or accommodation is received.
So let me be clear—this access to facilitate right of entry, is not for 'helicopter joy-rides'; this is not for employers to pay the cost of transportation. This bill does not provide that the cost of transport and accommodation has to be paid by the employer facilitating access to the location.
What the bill simply provides is that if an arrangement for accommodation or transport is made, the occupier can charge the union or permit holder the amount necessary to cover the cost of that transport or accommodation what is commercial.
Greenfields and intractable bargaining
The Fair Work Act Review Panel extensively considered concerns about greenfields negotiations raised by stakeholders. In its report the independent panel expressed the view that there are significant risks that the bargaining practices associated with greenfields agreements could threaten investment in major projects.
The panel recommended that the government implement amendments to the Fair Work Act providing for the Fair Work Commission to arbitrate or determine the content of an agreement where negotiations have reached an impasse, a specified time period has expired and conciliation has failed.
The government supports this recommendation. I shall continue to work with employers and unions on these matters with a view to introducing further legislative reforms in this area during the winter sittings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this bill reflects commitment to improving the lives of Australian workers, whilst supporting business flexibility and profitability.
These are modest, balanced, pragmatic enhancements to the Fair Work Act proposed in this bill, and they will further encourage productive, collaborative and creative clever workplaces.
It will also provide certainty for employers in key areas while ensuring that all workers, especially those with family and caring responsibilities, can effectively participate in the workforce and can be represented at work.
This bill implements several of the recommendations of the review panel and is the result of extensive consultation with both employer and employee stakeholders during the review and since the review report was published last year.
As I said when I stood here in October 2012 introducing the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2012, I and the government keep an open mind on the remaining recommendations of the Fair Work Act Review Panel and other measures to improve the operation of the Fair Work framework.
We are committed, transparently—not by hiding our views, but by working with all stakeholders—to implement further changes if there is clear policy justification and changes which reflect the government's overall policy of maintaining a fair, flexible and productive workplace relations framework.
I believe we can do more to harness the capacity of Australian people. To do this, we need to cut across the old narratives of conflict and division. I have experienced firsthand many examples of cooperation, of compromise and pragmatism at workplaces around Australia. There are many untold success stories of business and workers that should be told and should be celebrated. We must move from a stuck in a business-as-usual routine to support those who pursue innovation, knowledge and creativity. Those are the drivers of economic growth and must be the drivers of our future. Those are the drivers that will unlock the full potential of our great workplaces and create good jobs.
I urge all members to support this bill and support its passage through the parliament. I commend this bill to the House, and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie—Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (10:15): I present the Climate Change Authority—Renewable Energy Target Review—Final report, December 2012 and the government's response to the report. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard.
BILLS
Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:16): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present a bill to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to make two small amendments to the arrangements governing how referendums are run.
The bill implements one of the recommendations of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which reported on the machinery of referendums in the December 2009 report entitled: 'A time for Change: Yes/No'.
Recommendation 3 of this report was that:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (Commonwealth) to require a Yes/No pamphlet to be delivered to every household, not every elector.
Subsections 11(1), (2) and (3) of the act provide for the printing and distribution to each elector of a pamphlet which outlines arguments in favour of the proposed constitutional change and arguments against the proposed constitutional change. These arguments are compiled and presented in one pamphlet known as the Yes/No pamphlet.
Printing and sending the Yes/No pamphlet to every Australian elector represents a substantial expense. According to figures drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website there were approximately 5.7 million family households in Australia in 2006 and this figure is increasing. It is not unreasonable for persons who share a family household to share the Yes/No pamphlet.
Of course, it is not intended to restrict access to the Yes/No pamphlet. This bill replaces the requirement that a pamphlet be posted to each elector by requiring the Electoral Commissioner to send a pamphlet to each residential address, mainly those from the addresses that appear on the electoral roll.
However, as communication methods have changed since the last referendum in 1999, the bill also gives an additional capacity to send pamphlet information via email. Many Australians wish to communicate via digital means and this small amendment merely allows the Electoral Commissioner to send the information via email if that is what is sought.
Finally the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has the capacity to identify residential addresses where numerous electors are enrolled—for example, nursing homes. The AEC will ensure that multiple copies are provided to such establishments. And the AEC will also translate the pamphlet into other languages and formats which will be able to be accessed and read on the AEC's webpage.
The second amendment suspends the operation of subsection 11(4) to allow broader Commonwealth spending. This amendment has been drafted in similar terms to an amendment which the parliament passed to support the 1999 referendum. It broadens the capacity of the Commonwealth to spend money on promoting, educating and informing the public about the case for and against any referendum.
The proposed suspension of subsection 11(4) is only until the end of polling day for the 2013 general election.
The government is considering the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, released on 7 March 2013. These amendments would keep open the option of a referendum at the forthcoming 14 September election, subject to continuing bipartisan support at the federal and state levels, and further consultations, in particular with the states and territories.
Finally, and in hope of coalition support, I emphasise that the introduction and passage of these amendments does not commit the government to holding a referendum at the 14 September 2013 election. However, the amendments contained in this bill are necessary to keep open the option of holding a referendum at the next election.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:20):
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
New forensic facility at Majura, Australian Capital Territory.
The Australian Federal Police proposes the construction of a new purpose-built facility at its Majura complex in the Australian Capital Territory. The forensic science and technical intelligence capability of the Australian Federal police is provided by the Forensic and Data Centres portfolio, which comprises a large number of specialist forensics services as well as the Australian Bomb Data Centre and the Australian Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Data Centre. This capability is integral to the successful investigation and prosecution of all crime types and contributes to national security and regional capability development outcomes. This capability is currently located in a leased facility at Weston in the Australian Capital Territory which no longer provides the necessary accommodation to support Australian Federal Police forensic and technical intelligence activities and requirements. The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $106 million plus GST. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in late-2013 and be completed by mid-2015. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:22): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
New National Archives preservation facility for the National Archives of Australia at Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory.
The National Archives of Australia preserves valuable Commonwealth records as part of the archival resources of Australia and makes them available to present and future generations of Australians.
The National Archives presently leases a number of facilities across Australia, with the largest record storage facilities being located at Mitchell and Greenway in the Australian Capital Territory, Chester Hill in New South Wales and East Burwood in Victoria. A comprehensive strategic planning study undertaken from the National Archives on the existing record storage capacity and capability against projected future requirements confirmed that repositories were operating at close to full capacity. Current estimation is that the National Archives will be full by 2015. A 2010 survey of Commonwealth agencies identified a backlog of 165 shelf kilometres of archives that will, in time, be transferred to the National Archives.
The National Archives preservation facility was developed under the two-stage capital works budget approvals process. The new National Archives preservation facility at Mitchell, together with the proposed refurbishment of the existing Mitchell facility and an internally funded upgrade of the Archives' Sydney facility, will provide growth space until 2031. The Greenway facility in the ACT will be relinquished. The new facility will enable the National Archives to partly address the 165-shelf-kilometre backlog, provide sufficient storage for growth until 2031, provide a greater capacity and capability for a digital repository and provide improved preservation and conservation work areas.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, a multistage procurement process will commence in 2013. The successful developer will commence work on construction of the new facility and the integrated fit-out in 2015, with occupancy planned for late 2016. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:24): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation nuclear medicine project.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, or ANSTO, proposes the construction of a new nuclear medicine facility at Lucas Heights, New South Wales. ANSTO is Australia's national nuclear research organisation and the centre of Australia's nuclear expertise. ANSTO operates the Australian OPAL research reactor, used in medical isotope production and groundbreaking research.
Currently, each week, OPAL produces 10,000 doses of potentially lifesaving radiopharmaceuticals. In their lifetime, one in two Australians will require the nuclear medicines produced at ANSTO. These medicines are used in the diagnosis and treatment of numerous heart, liver, bone and kidney conditions as well as cancers. ANSTO's landmark infrastructure and nuclear expertise is also used to conduct research into areas of key national importance, such as climate change, water resource management and better ways to diagnose skin cancer. This new nuclear medicine facility has two components: a new nuclear medicine manufacturing facility and a co-located Synroc waste treatment plant. The export-scale nuclear medicine manufacturing facility will guarantee the future supply of molybdenum-99, or Mo-99, to Australians. Mo-99 is one of the world's most important nuclear medicines and allows the detection of life-threatening diseases and the opportunity to treat patients before a critical stage is reached. In Australia each year, 550,000 people receive a diagnosis using Mo-99. The new facility will also allow Australia to meet a significant proportion of the world's increasing demand for Mo-99, which currently totals around 45 million doses a year.
This is a facility that will produce medicines from low-enriched uranium. The project will position Australia at the forefront of a global movement to eradicate the use of highly enriched uranium and the military risks associated with it. The Synroc facility is based upon ANSTO's proprietary technology and is the world's first facility of its kind, able to treat a variety of wastes. It will provide a viable economic solution to consolidating waste that is a legacy of 50 years of Australian nuclear medicine production. The estimated out-turn costs of the proposed works is $168 million plus GST.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed works are scheduled to start in 2013 and be completed by 2016. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:28): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
The Australian War Memorial redevelopment of the First World War galleries.
The redevelopment of the First World War galleries at the Australian War Memorial, estimated to cost $32.52 million plus GST, is part of the package of commemorative events and initiatives comprising the Anzac centenary program for 2014 to 2018. It is unlikely that any other agency, public or private, has the depth of experience and collection of artefacts to facilitate the development of a world class exhibition on the First World War.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed works are scheduled to start in April 2013 and be completed by November 2014. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for its support and commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:29): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Air Warfare Destroyer Ship sustainment facilities at Garden Island, Randwick Barracks and HMAS Watson in Sydney, New South Wales.
The new air warfare destroyer will replace the Navy's Adelaide class guided missile frigates with three Hobart class air defence capable ships. The air warfare destroyers, currently under construction in three shipyards, in Newcastle in New South Wales, Williamstown in Victoria and Osborne in South Australia, will be the most advanced and complex warships introduced into service in the Royal Australian Navy. The first new air warfare destroyer, HMAS Hobart, is due for delivery in early 2016. The air warfare destroyer ship sustainment facilities project will provide permanent maintenance, systems support and berthing infrastructure at Garden Island, plus training facilities at Randwick Barracks and HMAS Watson in Sydney, New South Wales.
Garden Island, in Sydney, will be the operational base for the new air warfare destroyers, and the project proposes to co-locate and share certain new facilities with the new landing helicopter dock ships that will also operate from Sydney. At Garden Island, there will be berthing infrastructure upgrades to the wharves and a new shared three-storey office building to accommodate personnel involved in maintaining and keeping the ships operational. At Randwick Barracks, there will be a new air warfare destroyer training centre for crews, which will also be co-located and share certain facilities with a landing helicopter dock training centre. At HMAS Watson, there will be a new air warfare destroyer command team trainer to practise and hone the ship's command teams in the profession of maritime warfare.
The estimated cost of the proposal is $109.9 million plus GST and includes all delivery costs for the management and design fees, construction costs, information and communication technology, furniture, fittings, equipment contingencies and an allowance for escalation. Capital investments in the project will have economic benefits for the Sydney region and local industry, with significant opportunities for subcontractors and the construction industry over the next three years. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence later this year and be completed by late 2015. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:32): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
AIR 9000 Phase 8 MH-60R Seahawk Romeo facilities project.
The Air 9000 Phase 8 project is a key defence capability initiative that will deliver 24 MH-60R Seahawk Romeo maritime combat helicopters with associated support systems and weapons. The MH-60R Seahawk Romeo will replace the existing 16 ageing S-70B-2 Seahawk helicopters and will provide Navy with advanced anti-submarine and warfare capabilities.
Infrastructure and building works are required to support MH-60R Seahawk Romeo operations, maintenance, training and ordnance storage facilities that are to be constructed at HMAS Albatross, near Nowra, New South Wales, at HMAS Stirling, Western Australia, and at Twofold Bay, Eden, New South Wales. This capital investment will bring economic benefits to these locations for local industry with significant opportunities for subcontractors and the construction industry over the next four years.
Works at HMAS Albatross are anticipated to generate an average of 100 full-time jobs over the period of 16 months, peaking at approximately 260 full-time jobs. Works at HMAS Stirling are anticipated to generate an average of 15 to 20 full-time jobs for each of the three project elements over a period of 46 months, peaking at approximately 45 full-time jobs. Works at Twofold Bay are anticipated to generate an average of 15 full-time jobs over a period of six months, peaking at approximately 25 full-time jobs.
The estimated cost of the proposal is $201.3 million plus GST and includes all delivery costs, including management and design fees, construction costs, information and communications technology, furniture, fittings, equipment contingencies and an allowance for escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, staged construction is scheduled to commence in late 2013 and is planned to be completed on all sites by mid-2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:34): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Melbourne accommodation project, Southbank, Victoria.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC, currently occupies three sites in Melbourne, one at Southbank and two at Elsternwick. In 1999, the ABC purchased the site immediately adjacent to its existing Southbank centre with the long-term objective of consolidating all of its Melbourne based staff and operations, with the exception of television outside broadcast operations, on one site at Southbank.
The proposed Melbourne accommodation project will achieve this objective together with a range of other ABC strategic, functional and financial objectives. In an era of converging media, the proposed Melbourne accommodation project will build an efficient and flexible working environment for ABC staff that reflects and supports the ABC charter. The proposal also aligns with a range of government policy objectives in the area of the transition to digital television and digital radio services in metropolitan areas, environmental sustainability and the delivery of high-quality and diverse broadcasting services, including international television.
The project involves the construction of a purpose-built accommodation on the site immediately adjacent to the current Southbank broadcast centre at 102-118 Sturt Street, Southbank. The consolidated facility will house all ABC radio, television and online production in Melbourne, as well as broadcast and support facilities.
The estimated cost of the project is $176.4 million, including project management, design, construction, building fit-out and the ABC broadcast technology fit-out. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in late 2013, with project completion estimated to be late 2016. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:37): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Defence Science and Technology Organisation Human Protection Performance Division security and facilities upgrade, Fishermans Bend, Melbourne, Victoria.
The Defence Science and Technology Organisation—DSTO—is a lead defence organisation agency charged with applying science and technology to protect and defend Australia and its national interests. In addition to the specialist advice and innovative solutions DSTO provides to the Australian Defence Force—the ADF—the expertise that resides in DSTO also delivers unique capabilities to support the Australian government's broader national security requirements.
The DSTO Human Protection Performance Division—HPPD—is located at the DSTO Melbourne site, which is also known as DSTO Fishermans Bend. The mission of HPPD is the application of innovative science to improve the protection and performance of personnel in physically challenging environments. The HPPD security facilities upgrade project proposes to enhance site security at DSTO Fishermans Bend and to rectify inadequacies in existing facilities in order to improve the HPPD's ability to generate capability in support of the ADF and other Australian government organisations and agencies. The estimated out-turned cost for the project is $41.1 million plus GST, and will provide new and refurbished facilities and infrastructure at the DSTO Fishermans Bend site.
Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in mid-2013 and be completed by early 2016. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:38): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Landing Helicopter Dock Ship sustainment facilities at Garden Island and Randwick Barracks in Sydney, New South Wales.
The new Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment—ADAS—program comprises a number of projects to enhance the Australian Defence Force's amphibious capability, including the acquisition of two new Canberra class landing helicopter dock—LHD—amphibious assault ships for the Royal Australian Navy.
The ADAS program aims to provide the Australian Defence Force with a multi-dimensional manoeuvre capability in support of the Australian Defence Force's future operating concept. The two new Canberra class LHDs will replace the heavy landing ship HMAS Tobruk and two amphibious landing ships, HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla. Each new LHD will be capable of embarking, transporting and deploying a force of over 1,000 personnel by air and sea, along with all their weapons, ammunition, vehicles and stores. The LHDs will also be capable of conducting and supporting humanitarian missions, and will be jointly crewed with personnel from Navy, Army and Air Force.
The LHD hulls are being built by Navantia at the Fene-Ferrol shipyard in Spain. The hulls will then be transported to Australia as individual lifts on a float-on float-off, heavy-lift ship. Construction of the LHD superstructures and their consolidation with the hulls are then conducted by BAE Systems in their Williamstown shipyard in Victoria.
The first LHD arrived at the Williamstown shipyard in October 2012. The first completed LHD HMAS Canberra is due for delivery in early 2014. The LHD ship sustainment facilities project will provide permanent maintenance, systems support and berthing infrastructure at Garden Island, plus training facilities at Randwick Barracks, Sydney, New South Wales.
Garden Island in Sydney will be the operational base for the new LHDs and the project proposes to co-locate and share certain new facilities with the new air warfare destroyers that will also operate from Sydney. At Garden Island there will be berthing infrastructure upgrades to the wharves and a new, shared three-storey office building to accommodate personnel involved in maintaining and keeping the ships operational.
At Randwick Barracks there will be a new LHD training centre for crews, which will also be co-located and share certain facilities with an air warfare destroyer training centre. The estimated cost of the proposal is $60.3 million plus GST and includes all delivery costs, management and design fees, construction costs, information communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and an allowance for escalation.
Capital investment in the project will have economic benefits for the Sydney region and local industry, with significant opportunities for subcontractors and the construction industry over the next three years. Subject to parliamentary approval construction is expected to commence later this year and be completed by late 2015. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:42): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Infrastructure and upgrade works to establish a Regional Processing Centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship proposes to develop a new regional processing centre located on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, at an estimated out-turned cost of $171.7 million. The project aims to support the government program to improve the capacity to process claims from irregular maritime arrivals in Australia in response to recommendation 9 of the report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.
The Manus Island regional processing centre is required to provide a basic standard facility for the accommodation, health, welfare and processing of irregular maritime arrivals and appropriate accommodation facilities for staff. Subject to parliamentary approval, and following a detailed design process, construction works are planned to commence in mid-2013, with construction to be completed by early 2014.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:43): I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the report be agreed to.
Leave not granted.
REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (10:44): As required by resolutions of the House I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 29 November 2012 to 20 March 2013.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (10:44): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the committee's report entitled Family businesses in Australia—Different and significant: why they shouldn’t be overlooked, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave not granted.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Mr Garrett: I rise on a point of order. I am just seeking some clarification and a ruling. Given that reports from committees was noted on the Notice Paper, it now seems that the opposition is not wishing to have these reports tendered to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): The leave is requested, and if leave is not granted, it is not granted. That is the standing orders.
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (10:46): I rise to support the legislation that we have before us today in the House. This legislation amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to include, as a new matter of national environmental significance, coal seam gas and large coalmine developments which have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on water resources. Where projects trigger the new matter of national environmental significance they would require assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. The new trigger would apply to relevant projects that are currently under assessment, and transitional powers have been designed to minimise the disruption to the assessment of existing projects as far as possible, while also meeting the objectives of the amendments to provide robust assessment of coal seam gas and large coal mining where there will, or where there is a likelihood that there will, be a significant impact on water resources.
This is an issue that is very close to the hearts of a number of constituents that I represent in this place. This is an issue that has caused angst throughout our communities, and it is one that I have a lot of sympathy with. The fact that coal seam gas extraction, or fracking as it is known, can cause environmental damage and can cause water pollution—and water is of vital importance to us not only as a nation but, I think, worldwide—means that there needs to be a robust environmental impact assessment process before coal seam gas, or fracking, is allowed to take place.
This is an issue where there is a lot of uncertainty in the science. I have done considerable reading on this matter and the reading has influenced my approach to coal seam gas extraction. It has shown me that there have been examples of where water has been polluted. It has shown me that we need to adopt a very cautionary approach to this issue. Concerns have been raised not only with me about the impact of coal seam gas and large coal mine developments. I think this issue has also been raised with a number of members across a wide variety of electorates within this parliament. We have an obligation to provide greater environmental protection for water resources and to ensure that water resources are not impacted on by these activities. Water resources are definitely a matter of national significance in relation to coal seam gas extraction and large mining. Coal seam gas and large mining development proposals, under this legislation, will require federal assessment and approval to ensure that there is no significant impact on those water resources. This will allow the impact of coal seam gas extraction and large coal mine developments to be comprehensively assessed at a national level so that we can see the impact that these activities will have on our water supply, because water and a safe, secure water supply are vital to ensure that we have healthy communities. Something that is important to each and every member of this parliament is not only to ensure healthy communities but also to ensure that our agriculture flourishes and that we as people do have access to adequate water supplies.
The government is obviously responding to ensure the long-term health and the viability of water resources and sustainable developments of the coal seam gas industry. It is adopting an approach that, on one hand, is looking after the health and water supply and, on the other hand, is making sure that new applications are assessed in a way where the process of the development and extraction, and the jobs that are created in that industry, are looked at, while ensuring that those jobs and the developments will not be at the expense of our environment. That is something that every Australian would look to ensure. They would want to make sure that any activities that take place in mining or coal seam gas extraction—fracking—do not have a negative impact on our environment, because quite often it is only years down the track that we actually learn of some of the implications of the activities. This is a very proactive approach to examining coal seam gas and large coalmine development.
The government has created the new independent expert scientific committee, which should give members a lot of confidence. That was created last year to provide advice on water related impacts of coal seam gas extraction and large coalmines. The committee will continue to provide advice for coal seam gas and large coalmine projects which will require Commonwealth assessment, including assessment of the impact on water resources. This expert panel is drawn from a number of areas. Those who are on that expert panel have detailed knowledge of the impacts. In a very holistic way, the panel will look at mining and the extraction of coal seam gas.
The consultation in relation to this is very different to the approach taken by the New South Wales government, which has an on-again and off-again moratorium. It tends to just blow with the wind and adopts the approach that it feels will be most beneficial for it. Good government is about looking at an issue and putting in place a process that is going to deliver the best outcome for communities. What we have in this legislation will deliver the best outcome for our communities.
My local community has raised issues about the impact of coal seam gas plants on surrounding aquifers. The extraction of methane from coal seam gas requires the extraction of a large quantity of water. Across the country it may total between 30 and 90 gigalitres of groundwater per year. This has been expressed as a concern. It is broadly well understood that there are likely drawdowns of aquifers and depression of aquifers, and that risks groundwater contamination. There is the risk of subsidence of the ground, and the salt in the water of the coal seam will be brought to the surface—about 1.8 tonnes per year.
The issue of subsidence is very relevant to communities within my electorate. Some of the areas around Chain Valley Bay in particular have suffered mine subsidence in the past. I know from working with residents over a number of years that, once subsidence occurs, it is really difficult to get a resolution to the problem. Those residents have fought very hard against the New South Wales government for a long time to get a final resolution to the problem that they have with subsidence, and I am talking about 20 years. That demonstrates how important it is that we resolve this issue before there is a problem. The expert scientific panel can look at whether there will be water contamination and they can evaluate the proposal before them. They would look at the porousness of the rock, the impact that the injection of chemicals would have through the fracking process and how that will impinge on the natural coal seam.
This is an issue that concerns all Australians. It is about having knowledge and making decisions based on knowledge. It is an issue that revolves around our long-term water security. That is something we are all very keen to ensure. It is also an issue that revolves around environmental protection. Add to that the other side of the equation: jobs, economic activity and ensuring that we do not stop development in that area. It is a balancing act. Whenever you have conflicting issues, you have to come down on the side of the environment. If we do not have a sound and healthy environment, we do not really have anything. We have to have a secure water supply. We have to know that our water supply is not contaminated. That is what I see this legislation doing. Our nation's water resources are amongst our most vital natural resources. It is important that we take reasonable steps to ensure that those resources are protected. The proposed amendment will ensure that projects involving coal seam gas and mines will be assessed and approved under national environmental laws. The federal government do not have a lot of wriggle room in this area, but this amendment gives us the ability to have a say in this particular space.
Currently there is no direct protection of water resources under our national environmental laws, and this legislation will give us that little step towards having a role in ensuring the protection of our water into the future. I have listened to people on both sides of the debate and no matter what I hear I have to always come down on the side of the environment. It is imperative that we as a government support this legislation and make sure that these amendments are put in place. It will give the federal government full regulatory oversight where projects are likely to impact on water resources, ensuring that we continue to have the highest standard of environmental protection. That is what it is all about—having the highest standard of environmental protection.
I implore all members of this House to get together and support this legislation. This is legislation about our future; it is legislation that I know has support within the communities that I represent in this parliament.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11:00): I begin my contribution on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 by reflecting on the fact that in my community of Gippsland the issue of coal seam gas has become somewhat controversial, as it has in other parts of regional Australia—I think of Queensland, but more particularly throughout New South Wales. I do make the point from the outset that we need to be reasonable, responsible and balanced in the way we approach this issue in our communities. That is not the case when it comes to the Australian Labor Party.
The CSG industry has the potential to secure Australia's energy self-sufficiency. It can certainly boost the national economy; it can create thousands of jobs, and most of those jobs will be in regional Australia. For those opposite—who come in here and pretend to care about the environment, who lecture us on a daily basis about the need to reduce emissions—to turn their back on coal seam gas, which has emissions in the order of 70 per cent lower than coal, is foolhardy, and I suggest it is purely political opportunism that has driven them to their position.
This is an issue that members of the National Party have been very familiar with and have engaged with our communities on for many years. If I were to describe my own position in relation to CSG, I would say I was somewhat of an agnostic. I certainly want environmental safeguards in place, as every member does, but I also want the jobs, the economic prosperity, that the industry can deliver for regional communities. It has already managed to deliver that in Queensland, for in the order of 10 or 15 years.
It is amazing that members have come into this place and basically had the revelation that there is coal seam gas in regional Australia. It is only when it has been of interest to their own communities that they have realised that regional Australia has been discussing these issues for many years. I note the presence of the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in the chamber, and he is one who has been responsible and reasonable in this debate. Some of his colleagues could certainly learn from the minister in the way they approach this issue.
I urge those opposite to be very careful with their rhetoric. They come into this place and sprout emotional rhetoric that does not stand scrutiny, and certainly it jeopardises the potential for future development in regional communities. That is why there was bipartisan support when the minister introduced his plan to develop a scientific panel. There is concern in the community about issues associated with coal seam gas. The member for Parkes was quite right in his commentary yesterday when he said that this was an issue which needed greater engagement within our communities—it does not need invective, hyperbole and the emotional rhetoric which we have seen from some interest groups right throughout regional Australia in recent months.
In my electorate of Gippsland I have met with anyone who wants to talk about this issue. I have met with people who are opposed to coal seam gas and I have met with industry representative who have plans for exploration across the Gippsland Basin. I have told the industry very bluntly that they have a challenge—a challenge to earn the social licence to continue with these proposals. They need to consult with my community; they need to consult with other parts of regional Australia. They need to provide full disclosure on the environmental issues and provide factual information to our communities to reassure them that they can continue with this work in a responsible manner. My concern is that the bill to amend the EPBC Act has nothing to do with practically engaging with the community; it has nothing to do with improvements to environment safeguards. Frankly, it is all about politics. I fear that this government is not dealing fairly with the industry based on the merits of the issue.
In the speech of the member for Richmond yesterday there was no acknowledgement—not a single mention—of who put the permits in place in her electorate in the first place. There was not a mention of the New South Wales Labor government, which put those exploration permits in place in the first place. There was not a mention that it was the New South Wales Labor Party that created the mess that she referred to and which has been left to the coalition in New South Wales to clean up. There was also no mention that this is primarily a state issue. It is primarily the responsibility of state governments. If we are going to continually override state governments and continue to strip them of their responsibilities, and add layer upon layer of bureaucracy and duplication, how can we reasonably expect industry to invest with any confidence.
There has been a hysterical reaction whipped up by the member for Richmond in her own electorate for her own base political purposes. I believe it is irresponsible for members to be whipping up this campaign in their communities, scaring their communities, for the sole purpose of winning their seat at the next election. The member for Richmond yesterday referred to the Nationals' five-point plan to roll out coal seam gas. She has used it as an attack point for her opposition in the seat of Richmond. She has tried to discredit the Nationals' candidate, Matthew Fraser, who is being very responsible—
Mr McCormack: A shame.
Mr CHESTER: It is a shame—a shame that we have a candidate out there being very responsible and trying to engage with the community in a responsible manner, and we have the incumbent member, paranoid, terrified about losing her seat, attacking the Nationals' candidate. She referred to that five-point plan as though it were something new. As I said earlier, the Nationals have been engaged in this issue for months and months and months, if not years. In November 2011 the Nationals were the first party to lay down a clear path for dealing with this issue. We took a position on CSG in November 2011, after we met as a party, and our leader Warren Truss said at that time that the coal seam gas industry had the potential to generate an economic boom but if it was poorly managed it could become an environmental and social disaster. We put on the record then that we wanted steps taken to deliver that boom to provide those opportunities for our young people in regional Australia but to avoid potential disaster.
The member for Richmond likes to talk about the five-point plan as if she has discovered some cunning proposal by the Nationals to indulge in deals with industry. As far as I am aware, there has only been one party in New South Wales to indulge in deals with industry and that was the Australian Labor Party. She is promoting this five-point plan as if there is some great scandal. The five-point plan has been out there for 18 months. I do not think there is any member here that disagrees with our five-point plan because the points have been adopted by the Australian Labor Party and by the Liberal Party anyway.
The policy position that we took in November 2011 was quite simply this: we said that no CSG development should proceed where its poses a significant risk to the quality of groundwater or surface water systems or the environment more generally. Funnily enough, that is what we are talking about here today. In November 2011 that was the first point in our five-point plan. It also said: strategic agricultural land must be protected from activities that destroy its capacity to deliver food security. Well, every member in this place has agreed with that position as well. We have made the point for months that we should be taking steps to protect our prime agricultural land.
We also said in November 2011 that landholders are entitled to an appropriate return from the CSG projects in return for access to their land. The issue of access is a fundamental point in this debate. It staggers me that members opposite have only just realised that. We have been saying for months and months that landholders deserve a fair return for providing access to their properties.
We also said 18 months ago that regions deserve a fair share of revenues generated from coal seam gas generated in their communities. Hello, that is the exact policy that the Western Australian Nationals took to the people of Western Australia four years ago. They developed their Royalties for Regions program, which has been universally supported since then. In fact, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in Western Australia election campaign actually advocated for the Royalties for Regions program. They are all claiming it as their own. Suddenly there is a recognition that returning a fair return of royalties from revenue which has been derived from regional communities is a good deal. Again, that is four points of the nationals plan—this cunning plan the member for Richmond thinks she has revealed—which have been supported by members on both sides of the House.
The last point on our five-point plan from November 2011 was this: coal seam gas development should not occur close to existing residential areas. What is the cunning five-point plan the member for Richmond is talking about? If that is the five-point plan she is talking about, her party agrees with it. These are reasonable, rational points we have made that have been supported by the Minister for the Environment, by the minister for industry and, I would imagine, the minister for regional affairs, who is here with me today, would probably agree as well. We believe that regional communities need to get a fair return and be treated with respect by the industry.
It staggers me that we have had this hysteria by the member for Richmond because it is an honour and a privilege to come to this place and represent our communities. But having that honour and having that privilege also carries a very heavy responsibility. We have to act with integrity in our communities. We have to be reasonable and balanced about issues. This member, the member for Richmond, has done a huge disservice to her community with the way she has inflamed tensions for her own base political motives. This is all about the member for Richmond winning her own seat and nothing about the interests of the people of regional Australia.
In her address yesterday, the member for Richmond described the Nationals as environment vandals. I would urge the member for Richmond to refer to the record of her own minister for the environment when he was the minister for agriculture, because the minister for agriculture at that time, Tony Burke, ripped $11 million out of the forward estimates for Landcare. If you want to talk to me about environmental vandalism, it is taking $11 million out of Landcare, the great practical environmentalist in our nation, because you have struck a bit of budget hard times.
I caution people listening to this debate that the Labor-Greens alliance, which is presenting itself in regional areas as being the friends of farmers and friends of regional communities are not their friends at all. Many of these people are not campaigning against coal seam gas, per se. They are campaigning against fossil fuels. They hate all fossil fuels. This has got nothing to do with coal seam gas for many of these people. It is just another campaign of misinformation and false claims which are designed to destroy any form of fossil fuel development in our nation.
Having said all that, I believe there are legitimate concerns hence I support the Nationals' five-point plan. I think it is reasonable for members in this place to raise their concerns and try to deal with them by working closely with their communities. I think it is essential we have strict environmental protocols in how we develop this industry and I think it is essential that the scientific panel established by the minister for the environment has the support of both sides of the House and they were good moves. But I fear the amendment we are talking about today is just another layer of bureaucracy and duplication. Really, we are talking about an issue which is still primarily a state issue. It is an appalling message to the gas and the mining sectors that we simply do not want your investment. We have created another level of insecurity on development in our regions at a time when the regional economies are already struggling.
I believe this has been more about the members opposite drumming up a scare campaign to distract their constituents from the monumental stuff-ups of the Rudd and Gillard governments. They are saying: look over there at coal seam gas; do not look at the home insulation debacle; look over there at coal seam gas; do not look at our failure to control the borders; look at that coal seam gas; do not look at the carbon tax promise that I will never deliver a carbon tax under a government I lead; do not look at the mining tax farce; do not look at the billions of dollars that were wasted on overpriced school halls.
This is a campaign of distraction to say: look anywhere else but do not look at our record. Members in those seats cannot stand on their records because their records have been appalling. By supporting the Rudd and Gillard governments through the monumental stuff-ups, these members are simply saying: we cannot stand on our record so we will distract you with a scare campaign about coal seam gas; do not look at us fighting amongst ourselves; do not look at us having meetings in the back rooms of parliament all this week talking about whether Kevin should come back, whether Simon should come back or whether Julia should stay until after the budget. Sid Sidebottom, the member for Braddon, would be a tremendous Prime Minister. I think it should be Sid. Certainly the member for Hotham has equal claims to it as the member for Griffith. They are saying: do not look at us; look at some distraction over here; look at the coal seam gas issue and we will try and muddle our way through and get elected in September this year.
The people of the Tweed region deserve better. The people of the Richmond electorate are smarter than their local MP. They will see through this hoax. They will see through this effort to distract them, this smoke and mirrors from the member for Richmond. The people of the electorate of Richmond deserve better than they are getting right now.
Matthew Fraser, the candidate who is being so unfairly vilified by the member for Richmond in her newspaper attacks, is an outstanding candidate. He is a young man who is passionate; he is determined and he wants to make a difference in his community. The great thing about this young man is that he actually has a background in business. Fancy that! Fancy having a candidate with a background in business! There is not one member of the government's cabinet who has a background in business or who actually lives in regional Australia—not one minister lives in regional Australia. How can we expect the Gillard and Rudd cabinets, or maybe a future Crean cabinet, or a Sidebottom cabinet, to represent regional Australia when not one of them actually lives in regional Australia?
The people of Richmond deserve better than they are getting right now. They deserve a strong Nationals candidate. I will be endorsing Matthew Fraser, and I am happy to campaign with him in the interests of his entire community. (Time expired)
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (11:15): It is always interesting following the member for Gippsland. He is never troubled by hypocrisy in his speeches. I thought he was actually making some good points—and I will come to some of those good points—but we have to start with the fact that he accuses the member for Richmond of playing politics in relation to her speech and then presents the CV of the Nationals candidate in the electorate, speaking in glowing terms about the person! What that has to do with the bill, I am not quite sure. But we do know that the member for Gippsland does not worry too much about hypocrisy in terms of what he has to say. Come on! Let's be real about these things. If you want to accuse someone of playing politics, don't come in here yourself and do exactly that.
Mr Chester interjecting—
Mr CRAIG THOMSON: I listened with great interest to your contribution—15 minutes, 13 minutes of which was political. So let's get a little bit real.
But there were a couple of good points that the member for Gippsland made, and I think they should be acknowledged. I think the Nationals were right with their five-point plan. That was a good thing that they put forward, and the member for Gippsland should be proud that they took that stand and took it early. His contribution would have been much more believable had he stuck to those sorts of principles rather than being diverted.
He also made the point that the issues relating to mining are largely state issues—and that is right. But the need for legislation comes when the level of government that is meant to be dealing with this fails to do so. In relation to coal-seam gas, and mining generally, look at New South Wales and what has played out there. If you want to look at failure of process, we have certainly seen examples of that writ large in New South Wales. What is abundantly clear with that is that this is not the fault of one party. We have seen the very rapid departure of the former candidate for the state electorate of New England over very similar issues. Again, political points should not be made in relation to those issues in here without acknowledging that there are problems in the way mining more generally has been regulated at a state level.
So it is very legitimate for the Nationals to have their five-point plan and their position. And it is very legitimate for them to come into this place and say the federal parliament needs to look at additional protections because they have concerns with the way the state has dealt with these matters in the past. I think that, if every member acknowledged that in their contributions, rather than playing the politics more generally in relation to legislation, then we would end up with better legislation. But it is an election year, so those wishes are probably fanciful.
I want to talk about a mine in my electorate, because it involves some of the issues that this bill will hopefully deal with—although, can I say in relation to this particular mine, I think there is some more urgent action needed than just the passage of this bill and what happens as a consequence of that.
On the Central Coast we have had, for close to 15 years, applications and proposals to develop, first, gas mines and then coalmines under our water catchment area. The water catchment area is the major source of our water for over 300,000 people on the Central Coast. There is a plan for a mine to be located directly beneath the flood plain at the junction of the main river systems where the major flow goes to the aquifers there. The river systems are primarily aquifer-fed, and damage to the aquifers from subsidence will result in major loss of water to the catchment area.
We are in an area that almost ran out of water—one of the fastest growing areas in New South Wales. New families are being encouraged to move there and commute to Sydney and to Newcastle. Over 300,000 people are living there. And we got down to less than 10 per cent of our water supply. So issues in relation to our water supply, and things that affect our water supply, are things that the people on the Central Coast are very concerned about and they always make sure that their local representatives put those concerns at the forefront of any policy issues they deal with.
That is why, after I was elected in 2007, one of the first things the Labor government did was spend $80.3 million on making sure there was a water pipeline from the lower catchment parts of the Central Coast up to the storage dam—effectively making sure that the Central Coast would be drought-proofed in the future. We have had a lot of rain since then, but our dams have gone from less than 10 per cent to over 57 per cent, which is where they stand now. Locally, there was a celebration only last month, when our dam levels got above 50 per cent. The people of the Central Coast are acutely concerned about their water supply. The proposal for a longwall coalmine under the water catchment area in my electorate has been around for some time, and it is of major concern.
The reason the member for Gippsland is right in saying that this is a state issue but incorrect in saying that that is where we should leave it is that this application in my electorate has been dealt with on a number of occasions by state governments of both colours. Eventually, in the dying days of the Keneally government, Tony Kelly, who was then the planning minister, relented after it had gone through the processes to approve the dam, some of which are being amended through this bill today, and it was going to be approved. But because of the community outrage, the state government set up another committee, headed by Kerry Chikarovski. Again, the community and the businesses came along and said that this was not a good thing. Finally, Tony Kelly said that there was uncertainty around the ability of the project to meet acceptable surface water quality outcomes and that the project was not consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the precautionary principle. For those reasons, in the public interest, a decision was taken that the mine should not go ahead. That was terrific news but, unfortunately, the previous state Labor government was playing politics. It waited till the last moment to do this and say: 'This is our promise going into the election. We have stopped the mine; now vote for us.' What needed to happen, obviously, was to get the coalition—the opposition at that time—to make a similar commitment. Indeed, that actually happened.
The now Premier of New South Wales put in writing that he was committed to stopping this mine and to introducing legislation into the state parliament if necessary. He stood there with local community representatives wearing 'Water not Coal' T-shirts and he waved that banner around and got his photo in all the local papers. He went on to say: 'No ifs, no buts, a guarantee from my government that we will stop this.'
Mr McCormack: A bit like the surplus!
Mr CRAIG THOMSON: I hear the member interjecting, trying to make a political point. If his point is about politicians who make promises leading into an election and then do not keep them, then I agree with him. He would agree with me, I would think, that when a Leader of the Opposition makes a promise, puts it in writing, says, 'I pledge this to my local community, no ifs, no buts,' the community can expect that that undertaking will be honoured. Unfortunately, the Premier of New South Wales was just playing politics. He had the local community handing out Liberal Party how-to-votes because of that undertaking. Here we are down the track, with a failure in those state processes because of political interference—and I have gone through the problems with the previous government on this same decision. We have a proposal for a coalmine under the water catchment area in the Wyong shire that both the coalition and the Labor Party have said should not go ahead, yet the mining company is still out there looking to go ahead with it.
This is so important because the coalmine proponents themselves have said that the effect of this mine would be that 79 million litres of water would be lost from the catchment area a day. More water would be lost through the damage to the aquifers caused by this coalmine than water from the entire rainfall in our area. Experts forecast that it will take 200 years for the aquifers to recover if this mine goes ahead. That is what the coalmine is saying about the effect this mine will have on the Central Coast’s water supply; it is not what the opponents to it are saying. The legislation before us today, which is about protecting areas where there are water supply issues, is most definitely needed, because the state system has been both corrupted and inefficient.
When I asked a question in parliament the other day, this side of the House howled me down. I am sure the other side do not like it when the name 'Obeid' is mentioned. But let us be very frank about these issues. The Obeid influence in relation to mining is not just on that side of the parliament. We have seen the recently resigned candidate for New England be part of that loop. Liberal Party fundraiser Nick di Girolamo, who the ICAC inquiry has shown was lent $3 million by Eddie Obeid, is the lobbyist to the Liberal Party in relation to this mine. So there are issues of process that both parties have allowed to infect the way in which mines are looked at for approval.
Then we have the hangers-on. I need to briefly mention the current mayor of Wyong shire. All previous mayors on the Central Coast have fought against this coalmine, including the current mayor. But, strangely, as he is very heavily aligned with the Liberal Party, suddenly his opposition to this coalmine has evaporated. This is a bloke who, a couple of years ago when he needed votes, was out saying, 'This coalmine needs to be stopped.' Doug Eaton’s absence from this debate is very lamentable. The people of the Central Coast need to hold this mayor to account for not standing up for them in relation to this coalmine.
This legislation is important because it brings into focus water and how it can operate. The kind of example that I have tried to go through today shows what happens if you do not have that sort of legislation and how the state process can be diverted or corrupted or can be the captive of different interests that are outside the interests of the community. We need to make sure that water is at the forefront of consideration when looking at approvals for mines.
In conclusion, I have a private member's bill specifically relating to this mine. For the reasons for which people have spoken today about water being a consideration when looking at environmental issues, for goodness sake support the private member's bill when it comes on. This mine does affect the water supply of the Central Coast. It has been around far too long and has been interfered with by political processes from both sides, and the people of the Central Coast demand more.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:30): It is always good to replace the soon to be replaced member for Dobell. He railed against my colleague the member for Gippsland for being far too political in his speech, and yet I have just listened to him for his full 15 minutes and his whole speech was entirely political, entirely anti the coalition. The coalition does have a plan for coal-seam gas, and I have to say that that follows on from the ideas put forward by the National Party way back in 2011. This is important legislation, and I certainly agree with the member for Dobell there. But to go picking on the coalition for its stance and to absolutely rail against the member for Gippsland and say that all of his speech was entirely political, and then to do the same himself, was hypocrisy in the extreme.
Farmers are the original environmentalists. I find it also hypocritical that so many people are talking about the importance of water, yet, when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was being discussed, very few people were even recognising the fact that water is our most precious resource. Mining is important, but water cannot be replaced. Water is our most precious resource. I take note that the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is in the chamber. He charged the member for New England with the responsibility of chairing the Regional Australia Committee. The member for New England led an inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That committee brought down 21 very good, very solid recommendations that would have helped re-plumb the Murray-Darling Basin. If all of them had been adopted—and I am sure the member for New England will agree with me that they have not at this stage all been adopted—it would have been a saviour for many of the irrigators, who still face an uncertain future because of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I must say that I tried to disallow it in the last sitting week of last year. I note that so many people are now prepared to talk about water but were not prepared to talk about it when that discussion was taking place.
No-one understands more than a farmer the need to protect the environment and to use the land in a manner that safeguards it for the following year's harvest and for future generations. It is because of this that I feel the need to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013.
At the outset, let me say that the coalition does not oppose the bill. This bill seeks to amend the existing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to add a ninth matter of national environmental significance. This additional matter of national environmental significance pertains to the exploration and extraction of coal-seam gas, and the impact such activity has on our valuable and irreplaceable water sources. The Liberals and Nationals understand and recognise the significant community concerns surrounding coal-seam gas and large coal mining on water resources. Why else would the Country Women's Association members from Wagga Wagga have rallied about this very matter in Macquarie Street in front of the New South Wales parliament in what was seen as an extraordinary move by that wonderful organisation?
As the representative for the electorate of Riverina, a community built around water, I recognise and appreciate that water is our most precious national and natural resource. This point is particularly poignant today, as the adjournment of the parliament the night before last saw the controversial Murray-Darling Basin Plan signed into law.
The bill we are debating today is the focal point of legislation for the protection of the environment we have in place federally in Australia to date. The bill seeks to add developments surrounding coal-seam gas and large-scale coal mining to the existing eight matters of national significant to the environment, which are as follows: world heritage sites; national heritage sites; wetlands of international importance; nationally threatened species and ecological communities; migratory species; Commonwealth marine areas; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and nuclear actions.
At present the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act comes into play when a proposal for development has the potential to have a significant impact upon one of the eight matters of national environmental significance I have just mentioned. If passed, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill will make two main changes to the current process. First, it will require an environment impact assessment to take place when actions involving the exploration or extraction of coal-seam gas or of large-scale coal mining development are set to occur and are likely to have a significant impact upon water resources. Secondly, it creates provisions for civil penalties and offences for such development, exploration or extraction, without first obtaining approval.
While in theory these are good measures, this bill seeks to duplicate the existing powers held by the states. I wonder if the members for Richmond and Page would have been so vocal in their protestations about this bill last night in the parliament if they were not in such trouble in their electorates, with good Nationals candidates running against them.
The coalition is concerned that this bill will create a further layer of bureaucracy and red tape—or perhaps I should say green tape, because everything this government does has a green bent to it. As we know from other bureaucratic initiatives of federal Labor, such a move will increase approval times and make Australia less desirable for investment. The coalition, particularly the Nationals, hear and understand the concerns of people about coal-seam gas exploration and extraction, and this is why we are not opposing the bill.
Mind you, I must say that the member for Maranoa gave an excellent speech last night when he talked about the benefits that coal-seam gas had provided to his Maranoa electorate and, indeed, the investment in coal-seam gas in his electorate has been going on for more than 15 years and has seen a resurgence in some of the towns which would otherwise be ghost towns. We also heard the member for Gippsland say that coal-seam gas actually provided 70 per cent lower emissions than coal itself. So we must take all of these things into consideration. But we know that this government—which is drawn by the nose by the Greens, despite the recent divorce—is anti fossil-fuel development. We know that.
The Nationals have written our own policy document and it was formulated at a meeting at Cooma on 3 November 2011. In that document we have five central tenets of what our policy is and what our beliefs are on this particular issue. I will run through them. The first is that no coal-seam gas development should proceed where it poses a significant impact to the quality of groundwater or surface-water systems. It must be absolutely clear that no coal seam gas development should occur unless it is proven safe for the environment. I do not think anybody in this parliament would disagree with that. Secondly, prime agricultural land is an increasingly important natural asset. It must be protected from activities which destroy its capacity to deliver food security, not only for our nation but for a hungrier world, for generations to come. I do not think anybody in this parliament would disagree with that, either.
Thirdly, coal-seam gas development must not occur close to existing residential areas. People who have bought a home with a reasonable expectation of being away from mining operations must not be thrown into turmoil by coal-seam gas operations springing up on their doorstep. I would like to see if anybody opposed that particular policy initiative. Fourthly, landowners are entitled to appropriate pecuniary returns sourced by reason of access to their land. Remuneration for landowners should not be limited to compensation. Again, I think everybody would be in furious agreement with us on that. Lastly, the regions which deliver much of the wealth from coal-seam gas developments deserve to see a fair share of generated revenues reinvested in their communities. This is an opportunity to grow our nation and encourage a lasting legacy from coal-seam gas developments.
Again, I think that getting the regions to recoup some of the investment that is made in their regions and putting some of the money back into where it came from is a good policy initiative. We have seen Brendon Grylls in Western Australia really push that 'royalties for regions' initiative in Western Australia and how much difference it has made to those country communities in that state.
While this is a policy of the Nationals about which we are very serious, we also understand that the protection of water and water tables is already covered by legislation enacted by the states. So often in this place in recent times we have heard so much from those in federal Labor—who are absolutely bereft of their own policy ideas for doing anything that actually has meaning for and is in the good interests of the nation, and who just want to keep their own seats and keep their government in place—attacking the coalition states, particularly the eastern states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, which, let me tell you, inherited absolute basket cases from their state Labor predecessors.
It is not the wish of the coalition to come into this place and duplicate the laws enacted by our state colleagues simply for the sake of doing so. We are interested in ensuring this policy is done correctly—that it consults appropriately with stakeholders—all stakeholders—and ensures the protection and viability of our precious water assets. In saying that, there are a number of key stakeholders who are concerned about this particular bill.
I speak, for instance, of the National Farmers Federation, an organisation which represents many of my Riverina constituents. It has expressed concern that the provisions spelled out in this bill can be extended to agriculture.
Mr Windsor interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I hear the member for New England calling out—no doubt he fully endorses what I am saying! But I quote from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association annual report of 2011-12, where the NFF, through Roy Chisholm, its representative, has this to say under the subtitle 'Submissions to government': 'The NFF has released its 2012-13 budget submissions to the federal government for continued investment in agriculture and has identified 10 key areas for this investment.' The first they have listed is coal-seam gas. 'The NFF has called for a budget commitment to the Independent Scientific Expert Committee to conduct research into the impacts of mining and coal seam gas extraction on agricultural and environmental resources. Funding is being sought for the development of guidelines for recompense for landholders for land access under coal-seam projects.' That is important.
Land access is hugely important for farmers; we all know that. And, as I say, farmers are the best environmentalists that this nation has. I should know that—I come from a farm. My father employed good environmental practices for all the years of his life, which is why he ran such a successful farm. The NFF's concerns are concerns I also share.
I mentioned at the outset the fact that farmers are the original environmentalists, and farming itself is an exercise in caring for the land in a way which ensures that farming can continue into the future. They have a big stake in it. Farmers realise they are only custodians of the land and that they must hand that land on to somebody else who is also going to be able to produce food to feed our nation and others.
The NFF continues, to say that, while the provisions expressed within this bill may, 'at first glance look like a win for farmers in the short term, it could actually have long-term unintended consequences for current and future farmers,' and it is hard to disagree with that. The National Farmers Federation, as usual, is dead right.
Mr Windsor interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Again I hear the member for New England in furious agreement with what I am saying! I am sure he is saying, 'Hear, hear'! As with everything the Labor government puts up in place, we must consider what the long-term impact of it can be. Because farming is important now, its longevity and viability in the future is absolutely critical. The Labor Party's own statements on Australia becoming the food bowl of Asia during this Asian century are testament to that, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for her May statement last year when she said that we must be in a position to be the food bowl of Asia. And we must strengthen irrigation to enable that to be so.
We also need to ensure policy coming out of this place makes it easier, not harder, for farmers to produce the food. Labor, as it is great at doing, has given a sympathetic ear to industry and farmers when it comes to reducing red and green tape but, as usually al, these claims are devoid of substance. This legislation we are debating, which seeks to amend the Commonwealth's power to regulate around the exploration and extraction of coal-seam gas, comes after the water minister just six months ago rejected an amendment to do just that. The minister claimed the Commonwealth had no constitutional power to make those changes. It is only through pressure from perhaps the members for Page and Richmond, who are up against very good Nationals candidates, that he has changed his tune.
Mr Crean: What about New England?
Mr Windsor: What about New England?
Mr McCORMACK: New England? Absolutely. And, with Senator Barnaby Joyce putting his hand up, I know that the member for New England will be very worried, as he should be. This bill adds further regulation on top of that.
Mr Windsor interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I have named him: Barnaby Joyce, the next member for New England. We do not disagree with the entire tenor of this bill but coal-seam gas is an important issue and it is good that it is being discussed in this chamber today. (Time expired)
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (11:46): I am very interested to follow the member for Riverina and the contortionist act that he just performed in relation to the support for the legislative arrangements before the House. It is almost like listening to a three-legged donkey, in the sense that there are so many fences that the member for Riverina was trying to sit on then. I was also interested in his reflections in relation to the National Farmers Federation. He did, to his credit, spend quite a bit of time talking about the importance of water and soil to food production et cetera. He then made the point that he would be supporting the legislation. I assume that means the Liberals as well. The shadow minister in the chair might nod his head if that is the case. No, there is no nod. I was fascinated by the member for Riverina's view on food production and the importance of water and then he talked about the National Farmers Federation. The National Farmers Federation are opposed to this legislation. They have spoken against it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a national group that is made up of various agricultural organisations, some of which are in favour of this piece of legislation, would argue against it.
The issue goes back quite some time and there are some make political machinations that have been carried out in the past, which I will mention in a moment. There are great concerns about some of the issues, particularly with the migration of extended mining activity, whether it be coal-seam gas or coalmining activity, to the eastern parts of Australia and particularly into areas where there are valuable water and soil resources. The coal-seam gas issue in particular has highlighted the lack of scientific understanding that we as a nation have of some of our groundwater systems and how they actually relate to surface water flows, river systems et cetera.
The member for Riverina was a member of the committee that he talked about, and the minister for regional development, who is in the chair, set up that committee to look at the Murray-Darling issues. One of the issues raised through that debate was the real lack of knowledge about the interconnectivity issues of groundwater and river systems. I note that the minister for the environment has now come to the table, and I welcome him to the debate. It was very clear that there was a severe lack of scientific knowledge. We are embarking on a Murray-Darling Basin Plan where there were going to be end-of-river flows, water quotas in a sense, that would be looked at for the sustainability of the whole system. And there are glaring gaps in terms of the relationship between groundwater and surface water systems.
What this bill does is go to the heart of those issues. The history of this is that last year there was an independent scientific committee set up at the Commonwealth level, and I congratulate the Prime Minister and the minister for doing that. There was $200 million in funding to be associated with that particular scientific committee. That committee has the power to undertake a whole range of scientific endeavours, but the shorthand of that is that they can carry out what are called bioregional assessments. Paralleling this, you have a state based process. I will refer to New South Wales, but essentially a state based process has been in place for many years in relation to these matters. The development application process, the environmental approval process et cetera are essentially based at a state level.
There have been real concerns and real issues about the lack of scientific knowledge and, in some cases, the lack of scientific rigour in terms of the state based approval process. Part of the agreement that I made with the minister was to look at this issue. The Prime Minister has done that and the minister has done that. There was an attempt last year by the minister, in good faith, to negotiate with the states to set up a national partnership agreement where these issues could be dealt with with some degree of Commonwealth involvement but under the auspices of the various state arrangements. That national partnership agreement was signed. New South Wales in particular was going through this odd process of revamping its approval laws after the previous New South Wales state Labor government had run into a whole range of issues in terms of these areas and a lot of licences. We are seeing it played out in the ICAC in New South Wales at the moment—some of the issues that revolve around that particular government.
The coalition government signed the national partnership agreement and had to deliver certain protocols back to the Commonwealth so that the money could be accessed and the agreement could be put in place. New South Wales essentially thumbed its nose at the Commonwealth, in my view, and did not adhere to the spirit of the national partnership agreement. Out of that process we move forward. The member for Riverina says that the minister would not do this six months ago, but there was a process relating to the states that was attempting to do a very similar thing to what this bill actually does. If the states start whingeing about this, they should remember that they had the solution at hand. They had 12 months to put the correct solution in place. New South Wales came in on the back of what was, as I have just said, a flawed state based process.
A lot of people are very concerned about the impact of coal-seam gas on the landscape. They have been very critical of the previous New South Wales Labor government, and rightly so. That government decided to embark on a process of new legislation. A range of things were put in place, one of which was called a gateway process. When you examine the gateway process, you see that the gate is wide open and has only one direction—a drafting gate with one yard, in a sense. It was not an improvement. The words are all right, but in practice it was not an improvement. A legislative arrangement was put in place for a groundwater aquifer that was really only about consumptive use of water, not about risk to water; there was no risk profile associated with it. And there were a number of other pieces of legislation—or pieces of policy, really—to essentially deal with these issues, but they have not. In my view, they have made it slightly worse than what the previous Labor government of New South Wales had in place.
The concern has not gone away—and I congratulate the minister and the Prime Minister on this particular legislation—and at that point it became very clear that if the concerns of many Australians were to be addressed then the Commonwealth, through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, should in fact have a greater role to play, particularly in relation to water and particularly on the back of the groundbreaking agreement that the same minister put in place whereby water across state boundaries was finally broken. This follows in somewhat of a sequence when we look at this water issue and its importance. The bill puts in place a water trigger that allows the Commonwealth to carry out certain activities in conjunction with the independent scientific committee that I mentioned earlier and allows appropriate bio-regional assessments and appropriate scientific work to be done for the Commonwealth minister to assess in relation to certain coal-seam-gas and coalmining projects. This does not destroy things with a backhoe or a dump truck. What it does is put in place a set of protocols that ensure that there is proper scientific rigour going into the processes that will lead to the approval or disapproval of some of these activities. Really, the only way you can do that—and this is why I am encouraged by the scientific committee—is by establishing a process whereby you actually carry out a bio-regional assessment of landscape in catchments so that you can get some idea of the capacity of the landscape to absorb the impacts of certain activities.
This bill goes a long way towards actually doing that. In fact, if you go back to 2007 or 2008, Melanie Stutsel of the Minerals Council of Australia made it plain to a Senate committee that a more appropriate way for the Commonwealth to be involved in these processes would be for a bio-regional assessment process of catchments to be put in place before exploration licences are even granted. There is good sense in that, because it establishes a protocol whereby mining companies do not waste money going into areas where they probably will not be able to mine. Mining does not take place in national parks, for instance—it is very simple. They do not apply for licences because they know they cannot get them because of certain environmental values et cetera. A lot of this is not that dissimilar. It is about putting in place some scientific rigour. The current processes are severely flawed. We need to address that.
I will also be moving an amendment that addresses the issue of the Commonwealth powers and the bilateral arrangements under the EPBC Act, and I am hopeful that there will be support for that. I am particularly encouraged that the National Party is suggesting that they are going to support the bill. I would hope that they would support the amendment as well, because I think it provides good policy for the future, based on scientific assessment and the risk profile of these various areas. People may well arrive at a point—and I hope this is the destination—that we do not stop all mining activity but we have some confidence in the process that allows it. And where there are high risks, or where a bio-regional assessment process identifies real concern, some of these activities will be disallowed. Regrettably, the state based process, over time, has shown that it is a one-way street. I think this process that the minister has introduced goes a long way to addressing some of those issues.
The other bit of history I want to mention in relation to the politics of this is that back in 2008 there was an attempt to amend the Water Act. That amendment actually got through the Senate one night, and this is where the hypocrisy of the National Party in relation to these water issues really kicks in. It got through on the votes of the National Party. The Minerals Council invaded the place at about two o'clock—Mitch Hooke and the boys. The next day—and I think it was the first time in our political history—when the Senate reconvened the National Party and the Liberal Party recanted their vote, after making these glorious speeches the night before about how they were going to save the Liverpool Plains and other very significant agricultural assets. So I think we have to try to overcome the doublespeak. What we need is a clear commitment from both sides of this House as to the future of scientific rigour in determining whether these projects are acceptable in terms of the landscape they are being proposed in. Water is very, very significant, as most speakers have said. Water that starts near Willow Tree in my electorate can actually end up at the Murray mouth. There are massive groundwater systems across the Liverpool Plains, for instance.
With time running out, I particularly recognise Tim Duddy for the work that he has done with the Caroona Coal Action Group and the whole raft of very concerned people in the farming community and the associated communities for their involvement in this. It is a victory for common sense and for scientific rigour and particularly a victory for those people who have expressed concern, not in a political sense of left and right or green and red but with real concern for where they live and reside and the detrimental impacts that some of these activities could deliver.
I recommend the bill and congratulate the minister. I also recommend that all members of the House support the amendment that has been circulated which I will be talking to in the consideration in detail stage.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:01): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013, which proposes to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, known as the EPBC Act, and commend the member for New England on his contribution. As he succinctly put it, this water trigger is long overdue. I have talked to people on street stalls about environmental issues and a lot of my residents had assumed that the environment minister had such a water trigger, but, sadly, that is not the case, so the proposed amendment provides that water resources will be a matter of national environmental significance in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. I particularly commend Minister Burke on this timely and important legislative initiative.
The Gillard Labor government, like many Labor governments before it, particularly from the time of Gough Whitlam on, has been focused on appropriately assessing the challenges to ensure that there is protection of our water resources. This amendment will allow the impacts of proposed coal seam gas and large coalmining developments on water resources to be comprehensively assessed at a national level where appropriate. The Australian government is responding to community concern to ensure the long-term health and viability of Australia's water resources and the sustainable development of the coal seam gas and coalmining industries.
The EPBC Act enables the Australian government to join with the states and territories in providing a truly national scheme of environment and heritage protection and biodiversity conservation. The EPBC Act focuses Australian government interests on the protection of matters of national environmental significance. That is what a good government does to address matters of national significance. Then, obviously, the states and territories have responsibility for matters of state and local significance.
We are a federation and it is sometimes a bit of a tussle to get the balance right. I particularly say that as a Queenslander because, in my home state of Queensland, environmental protection and the conservation of biodiversity is exceptionally important to the Moreton community. Just a few weeks back, I met with a delegation led by Brad Smith from Salisbury and some other concerned youngsters who were worried about the effects of coal seam gas mining on our environment. They are a part of the Lock the Gate campaign. We had some heated discussions; we disagree on many things. I certainly do not agree with some of the arguments in the Lock the Gate campaign. I think the Leader of the Opposition even articulated once in an interview with Alan Jones that the ownership of minerals should rest with the farmer, as in the landowner. I believe strongly that the ownership of minerals rests with the Crown, as in the people of Australia, not with the person who is farming on top of it. But I am sympathetic to the intersection of farming interests and mining interests. Every Australian wants to see our economy grow and prosper, but obviously we need to do it in an environmentally sustainable way and not at all at the expense of our environment.
In Queensland, we have a chequered history, I could say, when it comes to environmental protection. I grew up at a time when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the Premier and was taking action in Cape York against the Indigenous population in Mapoon. Police squads were sent in to move people out in the middle of the night and people were beaten up on the roads around Daintree when they were trying to put roads through. However, there have been some success stories. Fraser Island is one of the great success stories in the area of environmental protection. Historically, we can thank the Premier of Queensland's dad for doing much of the great work in ensuring that Fraser Island was protected, and FIDO, the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation, which stood up to Joh Bjelke-Petersen. At that time, Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal and National parties were able to do something significant nationally for the future of Australia. Sadly, I think things are about to change in Queensland. I also acknowledge Peter Beattie because his legislation on the prevention of tree clearing was actually pivotal in allowing Australia to meet its Kyoto emissions targets. I also commend the Beattie and Bligh governments for the Wild Rivers legislation, which, sadly, the opposition leader and Premier Newman are against.
The Queensland Liberal-National Party Newman government did not make the environment a big issue in the lead-up to the 2012 election, but, sadly, I think the white shoes are back under the desk in George Street in Brisbane. In fact, the day after the election last year, the Deputy Premier, Jeff Seeney, announced that he wanted to make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park smaller, which was an incredible statement to make the day after the election. Talk about a mandate! It was mentioned not in the lead-up to the election but the day after the election, on the Sunday.
There has been much more. I was reading in the Courier Mail today articles about uranium mining in Queensland. We have learnt that the uranium could be transported through the Great Barrier Reef, despite a report recommending that any new Queensland exports be moved through existing ports in Adelaide and Darwin, especially since, whilst there are some uranium deposits close to Townsville, most of it is to the west. By any logic, if you were trying to protect the green brand of Queensland, you would send uranium up through Darwin or down through Adelaide, not through the Great Barrier Reef.
I am a passionate advocate for keeping safeguards over our reef. I stood up to fight with my local constituents to ensure that a marine park was introduced to help protect the biodiversity and cultural heritage of the reef for our future generations. We now have the most significant connection of marine parks in the world. So I was heartbroken to learn that Queensland's mining minister Andrew Cripps refused to back away from a long-term reef export option after being handed 40 recommendations by the Uranium Mining Implementation Committee, which is looking into cranking up uranium mining in Queensland.
UNESCO's World Heritage Committee has recently warned that uranium mining in connection with the reef could put it in danger because of an increase in coastal development and shipping. The Beattie and Bligh Labor governments did not allow the mining of uranium in Queensland but now Premier Newman's Liberal and National parties are reversing the ban. Environmental groups and trade unions are working together against the plans to bring uranium mining back to Queensland, claiming that the benefits are small and the risks are high, particularly when it comes to the world-famous icon, the Great Barrier Reef.
Uranium mining uses huge quantities of water. Water is needed for separating the uranium from the ore, for dust control and for covering the radioactive sludge. Olympic Dam in South Australia pumps 33 million litres a day from the Great Artesian Basin and is licensed to use 42 million litres a day. In situ leach mining, such as that used at Beverley mine in South Australia, involves acid being injected into the ore body on site and its contamination of the groundwater is almost inevitable. The water is not recoverable as it is a toxic mixture of uranium, acid, copper and ammonium that is used in the processing.
I am worried about the possibility of uranium mining affecting Queenslanders. Mary Kathleen is already leaking radioactive water. I commend this legislation before the House.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (12:09): I acknowledge that we have a time frame so I will do what I can to keep my speech under five minutes. I certainly acknowledge many who have come from the apology event in the Great Hall this morning, and sincerely hope that today makes a very big difference for many—certainly for a better Australia.
And I sincerely hope that this legislation makes for a better Australia, as well. This is an important reform that has been driven largely by the member for New England, who is next to me, and by many in this chamber, across party lines, who are concerned about the status specifically of water, but more broadly about the place of ecosystems and landscapes in this century, when reforms will be ever more important in some of the great challenges of our time.
If the population around the world does not change we will need to be producing twice as much food on half the landscape with half the environmental damage. That is a very difficult and unanswered equation that this legislation will hopefully play a small part in helping to start to answer, from an Australian perspective. It will allow landscape and ecosystem services to be recognised more in state and federal law. I am disappointed that it has come to the point that the Commonwealth has had to use the fairly blunt instrument of legislation, but state land laws are failing to recognise some of the very real challenges faced at a community level and the importance of water to the overall landscape and community amenity.
I want to raise some issues that are not addressed by this bill. One is population health, which is given a low planning value and does, over time, need to be given a greater value in the planning process in terms of the cost benefit—for example in the cardiovascular impacts of some of the decisions made in planning with regard to large-scale open cut mining.
As well, what is not in this bill, but I hope is addressed over time, is the status of local government planning powers and, by extension, community empowerment. Communities are completely disengaged, disenfranchised and frustrated by the anomalies in our legislation that have approvals of mining and coal seam gas overriding many issues in local government planning law. I have an example in my local community of Gloucester, where an area, through community consultation, has been defined under local government law as an area of scenic protection, yet there is an approval before the state authorities to put in a large open-cut coalmine. That is being done under legislation that overpowers that local government scenic protection determination. That is an anomaly that, over time, I hope is addressed.
Another example relates to recent approvals. The Gloucester Valley, only weeks ago had an approval of 110 gas wells. It has all been very public that at the very same time that one in Western Sydney was removed from planning the Gloucester project was approved. This was done only one month ago. It was done only days before the New South Wales government put in place their two-kilometre exclusion zone. Therefore, quite rightly, the 2,500 people living in Gloucester will see the passage of this legislation as a bitter-sweet moment.
I urge the company involved and the state approval authorities to reconsider some of those recent approvals, when we are still developing the law in this chamber and at a state level—when the energy rush is on, yet the laws are immature and proving to be ad hoc. I urge the state and the company involved in the Gloucester approval to reconsider in light of the new laws of the land, at both a state and federal level. Hopefully, they will reflect on that.
I am not one to go down the path of retrospective legislation and to try and get this House to support that, as difficult and frustrating as that is, with the recent approval on my patch, but I will urge with all my power that the state and the individual company reconsider. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
1. acknowledges:
(a) deep concern in several communities, such as the Gloucester Valley, where approvals have been made in the middle of recent immature and ad hoc planning laws being changed or updated;
(b) the ongoing failure of state planning laws that have forced the Commonwealth to become more involved in land law, and that the Commonwealth Minister and this Parliament continue to advocate to all states and territories the importance and value or ecosystem and landscape management over the coming century;
(c) the anomalies in various planning laws that disempower communities, particularly the way various provisions in various mining acts override local government planning powers; and
(d) the low planning value currently placed on the cost/benefit of population health.
2. strongly urges companies involved, and Governments involved, to reconsider some of these questionable recent approvals based on the four reasons above."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Windsor: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We need a seconder who has not spoken, the Clerk informs me. Since the member for New England has spoken in the debate, he is unable to second the amendment. The House is seeking a seconder for the member for Lyne's amendment.
Mr Wilkie: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Debate interrupted
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
National Apology for Forced Adoptions
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (12:16): I was honoured and privileged this morning to be in the Great Hall, which was overflowing. It is pretty difficult to bring the Great Hall to overflowing, and I proudly wear the pin to mark the occasion as I speak. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have played a role in some way in bringing the apology to fruition, not just in this place, but in the various state houses of parliament.
I join with all those who spoke so powerfully this morning in offering my own apology, as a member of this place and as a member of the Australian community, for the wrongs of the past. Some of the very powerful words heard this morning, including the suggestion—I am afraid I do not remember who the quote came from, I think it might have been a psychiatrist who said it—that one would swear some of the things we are dealing with happened a century ago in less enlightened times. But yet, very, very sadly, these were events that occurred only 30 or 35 years ago, and it is just so difficult to believe we could get things so wrong as legislators.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Hunter for his words.
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
1. acknowledges:
(a) deep concern in several communities, such as the Gloucester Valley, where approvals have been made in the middle of recent immature and ad hoc planning laws being changed or updated;
(b) the ongoing failure of state planning laws that have forced the Commonwealth to become more involved in land law, and that the Commonwealth Minister and this Parliament continue to advocate to all States and Territories the importance and value or ecosystem and landscape management over the coming century;
(c) the anomalies in various planning laws that disempower communities, particularly the way various provisions in various mining acts override local government planning powers; and
(d) the low planning value currently placed on the cost/benefit of population health.
2. strongly urges companies involved, and Governments involved, to reconsider some of these questionable recent approvals based on the four reasons above."
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (12:18): I plan to be very brief because we do have a very important event attached to the apology coming up very, very soon, but it is necessary for me to speak on this bill. I am very keen to speak on this bill and any amendments, because I am the member for Hunter and this initiative, which has been brought forward by the minister for the environment, is very relevant to my electorate.
I have a particular dislike for regulation. Overdone, it has the potential to strangle business and constrain our economy. But regulation, whether we like it or not, is a necessary evil. It maintains civil society, protects us from the excesses of the market and addresses market failure. The real challenge is to get the balance right. I have seen many unnecessary regulations from government at every level and of all political persuasions. Most people could readily cite an example of a stupid regulation and the waste of resources involved in enforcing that regulation. If you were looking for obvious people to ask, I suggest you turn to anyone who runs a small business.
Even though I would prefer that the Commonwealth had not found it necessary to intervene in this area, I do not put this particular initiative in the category of bad regulation. I would put this in the category of necessary intervention. I do so because, even though it involves an overlap with the various state governments, it also addresses the shortcomings of those state government planning processes. It also has great potential to restore some confidence in those planning processes which are so important in many communities, but very, very important in communities like the ones I represent because they have seen the excesses of development. Coal mining has brought wonderful and great wealth to the Hunter, but it has also brought environment problems, capacity constraints and other issues. Some of those environmental questions will live with us for a long, long time to come. I remain a very, very strong supporter of the coal mining industry. But we must ensure we get the balance right and are not in any way threatened in our water tables, for example, and the sustainable industries that strive as a result of the availability of clean and unpolluted water.
Coal seam gas is a wonderful resource for this country. It addresses our looming gas shortage. People will maybe come to understand that when they realise the price effect of shortages in gas and, ultimately, the effect of not being able to access gas. But again, just like coal mining, we cannot allow gas to come on line if there is a threat to our natural environment. I do not promote zero tolerance, by the way. We have never applied zero tolerance to any industry. We would not have too many industries proceeding if they presented any form of environmental problem. Again, there is an important balance. I believe this initiative gets the balance right. It brings the science into the arrangement. I welcome the investment by the minister in the scientific panel—some $230 million. It is a great initiative. It will restore confidence in planning approvals and processes, so I welcome the intervention.
I took the opportunity to inspect one of AGL's projects in a small village called Broke in my electorate. The gas drilling is taking place outside the village. Where they are exploring, they are using the extracted water to irrigate a vineyard which they have purchased, just to demonstrate some of the benefits. The water-saving is, I think, 20 per cent. They take the water out, dilute it with both rainwater and water from the Hunter River, let it settle and use the water to irrigate their vines. It is a pretty impressive example of how good the industry can be—providing gas supply, wealth and jobs, and water-saving comes with it. If we get it right it can be a wonderful thing for the Hunter Valley, bringing similar wealth as coalmining without anything like the footprint that open-cut coalmining brings, for example. But we have to get the balance right and I think this initiative strikes the right balance.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (12:24): I rise to support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013. As someone who recognises the importance of the coal seam gas industry to Australia, I say that we need to continue to demonstrate that Australia employs world's best practice regulatory standards. The proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 will ensure that the impact of new coal seam gas projects and new large coalmines on water resources is assessed under the EPBC Act. The key to this is independent scientific advice underpinning any environmental assessment. The amendment requiring Commonwealth assessment of new coal seam gas projects and new coalmines ensures the advice of the scientific committee must be considered in environmental approvals, even when there is no such statutory requirement under state law.
In essence, the amendments are all part of the government's commitment to best practice regulation when it comes to our energy resources. This includes the action of the Australian government, working through the Standing Council on Energy and Resources, in developing a national harmonised framework to regulate core areas of coal seam gas operations and a multiple land-use framework. Industry is committed to best practice, despite the view of some in this House. These frameworks recognise that operations must coexist with other activities, like farming, and will provide communities and industry with the tools to achieve such coexistence.
Preliminary advice from SCER has indicated that Australia's regulatory regimes already accommodate best practice standards, but this is a process of continuous improvement, as is the nature of environmental and Indigenous regulation in Australia. I saw this firsthand a couple of weeks ago when I visited the coal seam gas corridor in Queensland. I spoke to the workers involved in the industry, such as those on a drilling rig with experienced workers from overseas as part of the team. When you think about the industry at the moment and the loss of 9,000 coal industry jobs over the last 12 months, Queensland is exceptionally important. As a result of a $55 million investment in the coal seam methane industry in Queensland, we now have 25,000 jobs cushioning the loss of 7,000 jobs in the coalmining industry over the last 12 to 15 months. With coal prices as they are at the moment, I do not rule out further mothballing and closure of coalmines in Australia, with further job losses.
Unlike Queensland, New South Wales does not have that cushion. New South Wales has lost 3,000 jobs in the same period—2,000 jobs in the last four months—because of the collapse of metallurgical and thermal coal prices. Our objective is to make sure that we have best practice and ensure that it is based on scientific considerations. We need to end the senseless debate aimed at demonising industries that create wealth, opportunity and jobs for Australia and, in doing so, create a huge potential stream of export earnings for Australia. The state of Queensland today is a prime example of the importance of this industry. Without the industry in Queensland at the moment, the Queensland government would be most challenged in employment, especially in regional communities. People who have concerns with this industry need to spend a little bit of time in those regional communities and actually discuss the benefits of the industry with local communities. The workers themselves accept that best practice should apply.
When I spoke to the workers in Central Queensland a fortnight ago and to the workers on the drilling rig, who are international workers training Australians, giving them expertise for the future, they clearly indicated that in terms of world's best practice our training and qualifications are the best, and in terms of environmental considerations our standards are best practice in the world. Regarding suggestions that these workers are not receiving decent earnings in Australia, highly experienced workers from Canada clearly indicated that the wages they are earning in Australia are twice the wages they could earn in North America at the moment.
I seek to bring these benefits to the attention of the House because, clearly, we must get environmental considerations right in the same way as we must get Indigenous considerations right. Projects that do not meet those standards will be knocked back. Projects that do meet those standards must be allowed to go ahead without being demonised. There is a very important reason why we need to turn our attention to this issue: because of a fight to bring gas projects into operation in New South Wales and Queensland in recent times, we are staring at a potential shortage of gas in Australia, which is going to have a huge impact on potential prices for ordinary consumers, let alone the industry. I raise these issues to remind the House that we have to front up to our responsibilities environmentally and from an Indigenous perspective but also from an economic perspective, at national, state and local levels. The time has come for all of us to get on with having an established framework, back off from the senseless campaigns without foundation, and concentrate on scientific outcomes, investment and jobs for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (12:29): I thank members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (12:30): On some very recent and quality advice from the clerks on my second reading amendment, I would like to withdraw that amendment out of concern that, depending on the behaviour of the House, it may actually kill the bill. I would certainly hope that the other place deals with the sentiments contained within it. Neither I nor the member for Denison at any stage would want to see the passage of this legislation disrupted.
Amendment—by leave—withdrawn.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (12:31): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (6) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: I move government amendments (1) to (6):
(1) Schedule 1, items 20 and 21, page 10 (line 26) to page 11 (line 4), omit the items, substitute:
20 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to an action involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development that is taken on or after the day this item commences, even if the action began before that time, unless:
(a) item 22 of this Schedule applies in relation to the taking of the action; or
(b) the Minister decides, under item 23 of this Schedule, that sections 24D and 24E of the new law are not controlling provisions for the action.
(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (lines 7 to 13), omit subitem (1), substitute:
(1) The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to the taking of an action by a person involving coal seam gas development or large coal mining development if:
(a) immediately before the day this item commences, any of the circumstances set out in subitem (2) were satisfied in relation to the action and the person; or
(b) immediately before 13 March 2013, the circumstance set out in subitem (2A) was satisfied in relation to the action and the person.
(3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (line 14), omit "subitem (1)", substitute "paragraph (1)(a)".
(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (lines 24 to 33), omit paragraphs (2)(d) and (e), substitute:
(d) both:
(i) the Minister has informed the persons mentioned in paragraph 131AA(1)(a) of the old law of the decision the Minister proposes to make in relation to the action; and
(ii) the Minister has, as required by section 131AB of the old law, obtained advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in relation to the action;
(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (after line 35), after subitem (2), insert:
(2A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the circumstance is that none of the provisions of Part 3 of the old law were controlling provisions for the action and an appropriate Minister of a declared State or Territory has, under paragraph 505D(1)(b) of the old law, obtained advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in relation to the action for the purposes of giving a specific environment authorisation for the action under a State or Territory law.
(6) Schedule 1, item 23, page 13 (line 4), before "advice", insert "the Minister had not informed the persons mentioned in paragraph 131AA(1)(a) of the old law of the decision the Minister proposes to make in relation to the action or".
The proposed amendments to the bill would make a technical change to ensure that the prohibitions in the bill would not apply where the minister decides that a project will not have a significant impact on a water resource. They clarify that an exemption from the new trigger will apply if a state obtained advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee before the introduction of the bill on 13 March and will not overlap with the related exemptions for independent expert scientific advice to the Commonwealth minister. They clarify that an exemption related to the Commonwealth minister obtaining advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee will apply where that advice is considered at the proposed decision stage and after a comprehensive assessment. These minor amendments are proposed in response to stakeholder feedback on the bill and further technical review. These proposed amendments would give better effect to the intent of the bill.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (12:32): The opposition accepts these amendments in good faith on the basis that they make the transitional arrangements for 52 projects currently under assessment easier to progress. This bill has been confused and chaotic, and we are amazed and surprised that the government made such a hash of the drafting. It is consistent with other legislative failures, whether in relation to the media bills or certain fisheries bills which have essentially had to be withdrawn and redrafted on the fly and on the run. It is indicative of the general approach to legislative chaos which has been shown by this government. We are pleased that they are fixing up the mistakes they have made in a bill which was only introduced in the last few days. Having said that, we do not want to stand in the way of minor improvements.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (12:34): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 23), after item 3, insert:
3A Subsection 29(1)
After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24D or 24E,".
(2) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 25), after item 4, insert:
4A At the end of subsection 46(1)
Add ", other than section 24D or 24E".
4B Subsections 46(2) and (2A)
After "Part 3", insert ", other than section 24D or 24E,".
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the member for New England be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:38]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (12:53): Speaker, to assist the House, and given that others have arrived here, the Greens will move our amendments in the Senate. I will not move them here today.
The SPEAKER: We sincerely thank the member for Melbourne for his consideration this afternoon.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (12:44): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MOTIONS
National Apology for Forced Adoptions
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (12:44): by leave—I move:
That the House support the apology given earlier today by the Prime Minister to people affected by forced adoption and removal policies and practices in the following terms:
Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.
We acknowledge the profound effects of these policies and practices on fathers.
And we recognise the hurt these actions caused to brothers and sisters, grandparents, partners and extended family members.
We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children. You were not legally or socially acknowledged as their mothers. And you were yourselves deprived of care and support.
To you, the mothers who were betrayed by a system that gave you no choice and subjected you to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice, we apologise.
We say sorry to you, the mothers who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent. You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal.
We know you have suffered enduring effects from these practices forced upon you by others. For the loss, the grief, the disempowerment, the stigmatisation and the guilt, we say sorry.
To each of you who were adopted or removed, who were led to believe your mother had rejected you and who were denied the opportunity to grow up with your family and community of origin and to connect with your culture, we say sorry.
We apologise to the sons and daughters who grew up not knowing how much you were wanted and loved.
We acknowledge that many of you still experience a constant struggle with identity, uncertainty and loss, and feel a persistent tension between loyalty to one family and yearning for another.
To you, the fathers, who were excluded from the lives of your children and deprived of the dignity of recognition on your children's birth records, we say sorry. We acknowledge your loss and grief.
We recognise that the consequences of forced adoption practices continue to resonate through many, many lives. To you, the siblings, grandparents, partners and other family members who have shared in the pain and suffering of your loved ones or who were unable to share their lives, we say sorry.
Many are still grieving. Some families will be lost to one another forever. To those of you who face the difficulties of reconnecting with family and establishing on-going relationships, we say sorry.
We offer this apology in the hope that it will assist your healing and in order to shine a light on a dark period of our nation's history.
To those who have fought for the truth to be heard, we hear you now. We acknowledge that many of you have suffered in silence for far too long.
We are saddened that many others are no longer here to share this moment. In particular, we remember those affected by these practices who took their own lives. Our profound sympathies go to their families.
To redress the shameful mistakes of the past, we are committed to ensuring that all those affected get the help they need, including access to specialist counselling services and support, the ability to find the truth in freely available records and assistance in reconnecting with lost family.
We resolve, as a nation, to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated. In facing future challenges, we will remember the lessons of family separation. Our focus will be on protecting the fundamental rights of children and on the importance of the child's right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
With profound sadness and remorse, we offer you all our unreserved apology.
We reflect on these words spoken by the Prime Minister earlier today and we come together as a nation to acknowledge and apologise for the pain and suffering experienced by so many in our community as a result of forced adoption and removal policies and practices. As we acknowledge the insensitivities of these practices, we also ensure that the experiences of those affected are committed to the national record.
There are many people who have worked tirelessly to bring us here today. The Prime Minister acknowledged some of these people this morning. In particular, I would like to recognise the work of the chair, Senator Siewert, and members of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for the development of their report into the Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices. It was this report which confirmed the need for the Australian government to acknowledge and apologise for the suffering of all those involved.
I would also like to recognise the hard work done by the chair, Professor Nahum Mushin, and the members of the Forced Adoptions Apology Reference Group in their development of the apology wording and ongoing advice in preparations for today's event. The reference group had an important and challenging task and I thank them for their efforts.
Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge all of those affected by forced adoption and removal policies and practices who have gathered in parliament today. I admire the courage of those who have shared their stories and experiences. Your determination and advocacy has culminated in today's events and given others the courage to come forward.
Earlier today, the Prime Minister emphasised the ongoing trauma and suffering experienced by many parents whose children were forcibly removed and by those children, now adults, who were separated from their families. In reflecting on these stories, we recognise the diversity of people's experiences and the different paths their lives have taken.
Mothers have recalled the shame, stigma and social isolation inflicted upon them and the grossly unethical behaviour of many professionals whose care they were under. Many were not able to touch or hold their babies. Some had pillows placed over their heads during birth to prevent them from even glimpsing their baby. Many provided consent under duress and some did not give consent at all. Many continue to experience trauma as a result of these very experiences. It is difficult to comprehend the enormity of your struggles.
In highlighting your experiences today, we hope that we can help reduce some of your pain. Adoptees have relayed their constant struggles with identity. Many have told of their feelings of abandonment and some have only recently discovered their truths. We recognise that, for many, your birth certificates were changed and current laws have made it difficult to reconnect with your families of origin. I regret the pain these barriers have caused.
I know that many extended family members have struggled to understand the experiences of their loved ones affected by these practices. The love and commitment you have provided to this day has not gone unnoticed. I offer my thanks to those who have shared in the life journeys of their loved ones. Understandably, these experiences have had lasting effects, many of which have been misunderstood, and have also impacted the lives of fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins and other family members.
It is time that we as a country, as a parliament and as a government take responsibility for these terrible wrongs and injustices. This is why today as a nation we are saying sorry.
Many people have told us that words alone are not enough and that an apology is only effective in the context of other actions. This was made clear in the Senate committee report, where it states:
… every government and institution has a responsibility to match the words of apologies with appropriate actions.
We understand that concrete measures that accompany an apology are central to ensuring the apology is meaningful and assists people in their healing. Later today, the Australian government will table its response to the Senate committee report in the Senate. It announces an investment of $11.5 million over the next four years for concrete measures to assist those affected by forced adoption practices. Together with the work of the states and territories, this will provide a national framework of counselling and support services to address the key recommendations of the Senate committee report.
The package announced today will ensure that a range of effective services are available to mothers, fathers and adopted people, on the understanding that people affected by adoption are individuals with different needs. Five million dollars has been allocated to improve access to specialist support services, peer and professional counselling, and records-tracing support for those affected by forced adoptions. A further $5 million will provide for the development of guidelines and training materials for mental health professionals to assist in the diagnosis, treatment and care of those affected by forced adoption practices, and increase the capacity for general practitioners to refer those affected to mental health professionals who deliver focused psychological services.
Many people have acknowledged that the content of any apology is only part of the story. The Senate committee report reiterated this by stating that an effective apology must be 'widely heard and understood' to ensure greater public awareness of these practices. In response, $1.5 million has been provided to the National Archives of Australia to record the experiences of those affected by forced adoption and to increase awareness and understanding of these experiences in the community. The Australian government will also continue discussions with the state and territory governments to improve access to and amendment of adoption and birth records. These are positive steps which demonstrate the Australian government's commitment to redressing its mistakes and providing specialised support and assistance to those who seek it.
Today we have reflected on the stories and experiences of those affected by forced adoption and removal policies and practices. We hope that today's events will assist families to heal and signify a day of remembrance to acknowledge this shameful part of our history.
On behalf of our nation, we offer you our unreserved apology for the grief and pain these practices have caused and vow to ensure these practices are never repeated. I understand that today will mark the beginning of a journey for many of those affected by these practices; I hope that it will also begin the journey for Australia as a nation.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:58): On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition, I rise to respond to the Attorney-General's motion. I heartily endorse his words and sentiments, and acknowledge the commitment by this government of the $11.5 million to assist people in their journeys from this time forward.
Today we saw the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition deliver formal statements of apology, on behalf of the nation, to the parents and children who suffered harm when those children were forcibly removed and separated from their parents. Since my election in 2007, this is the third apology delivered on behalf of this nation to people who have suffered under a system that we could all say would not be acceptable in today's society.
I want to start by paying tribute to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the warm-hearted sentiments they expressed in the Great Hall this morning. For me, personally, it is a privilege to be able to respond on behalf of the coalition—and, after this morning's experience in the Great Hall, I feel greatly humbled to be responding on behalf of the coalition. To those who have been affected by these policies, you deserve nothing other than an unequivocal and formal apology in this place, and I hope many of you will be happy and relieved this day has finally come. This day is about you.
This apology, along with the apologies to the stolen generation in 2008 and the forgotten Australians in 2009, provides a substantial window into the humanity of this parliament. All members in this place know that we work in an adversarial environment, and these three apologies, which have dealt with some of the most misguided, shameful and regrettable actions of our 20th century social directions policies and programs, enable us to open our hearts and minds to the suffering and experiences of many people in our Australian population.
For those people who have lived the experience of forced removal and the secrecy that surrounded the process and outcomes, you now have had the opportunity of coming out into the open with your experience and this gives legitimacy to what happened to the mothers, fathers and their children. No longer do you have to feel as though you have a secret that will not be believed. This parliament is recognising that, and that is our message to you today. I can only begin to imagine what the parents of the children removed may have felt. The evidence given in the Senate report in 2012 on the forced adoption policies and practices gives us an intimate insight into those experiences.
I would like to relay to the House my own personal experiences that may assist other members understand in some small way the issues and understand the feelings that the parents and children of forced adoption felt and feel. I know that this House has people from many varying backgrounds, and these life experiences contribute to our ability to understand the emotions and trauma of people who have been through the forced adoption process. I am aware that at least one person in this chamber is an adoptee and, as I have stated before, I was a ward of the state. The feeling of disconnection from my family left a void in my life that was hard to explain and I can only guess that any child who had been removed and was aware they had been removed must have had similar feelings.
As a six-month-old baby, I along with two of my siblings was removed from my family due to financial circumstances. We went to stay in institutions. At that point, I was separated from my other two siblings. Growing up in the Irons household, I often thought about my family—'Where were they? What did they look like? Was I the same as them? How many of them were there?' I used to walk into shopping centres or football games and wonder if my brothers or sisters might also be in the same place I was and how close they might be. But I knew I would not know them even if I bumped into them.
Speaking to my mother about these issues years later, she spoke to me of the pain and the sorrow and feelings of hopelessness she experienced after having four children taken away from her. I mentioned earlier that three children were removed, but the next child after me, Richard, was actually adopted out and spent his whole life in a family growing up with two adoptive siblings who were significantly older and thinking he was just a late addition to that family.
When his adoptive mother passed away in 2011, Richard by then knew he had been adopted and, at the tender age of 51, sought out his original birth certificate and then discovered he had nine siblings. So in early 2012 I met my brother for the first time. He was 51 and I, along with our older brother Robert, were the first contact he had had with his family since he had been adopted. Richard—or Rick, as he prefers to be known—felt an enormous range of emotions prior to meeting us, and then his world changed on the day he met with us. Rick had the characteristics I have seen in many of my fellow forgotten Australians, ranging from insecurity to socially inhibited interactions that can only come from the type of experiences they have been dealt. It was a surreal feeling to be sitting there with two brothers who looked similar when none of us had the same surnames. We all had the same smart alec sense of humour and we shared not only physical similarities but similar idiosyncrasies. I wonder what it would have been like to grow up together. Should I see this as lost years or should I approach it from the angle that we still have many good years to share in the future? I also wonder what it would have been like to grow up in a family of 10 children and what could have been.
Are these the thoughts or similar of people who have been through the forced adoption process? From the evidence given to the Senate inquiry, the shroud of secrecy that surrounded the process young mothers went through and the lifetime of bitterness and feeling of disconnection would have been a continual mental blight on their lives.
Anyone who has ever felt they have let their children down by not being able to attend a school play or a game of sport will know that in itself that one experience can play with your emotions for days. Can we even begin to imagine what it must feel like to carry that with you your whole life? I know my wife, Cheryle, who lost her daughter Lauren at the age of 10, carries with her the nagging doubts about whether she did enough to save her child. For those mothers who had their children forcibly removed, I am sure the thoughts 'Did I fight hard enough?' or 'Could I have changed things and kept my child?' must continually be with them daily in their lives. Well, the answer is you had no choice, and for that this parliament has apologised to you today.
In the Senate report, evidence was given about forced removal, and I would like to quote from one of the many pieces of evidence as an example. The evidence was from an unnamed witness who was in the Royal Women's Hospital in 1959:
On the sixth day a nurse came to my bed and told me that someone wanted to talk to me in a nearby room. I went to this room and I now realise the person in it was a social worker. She started talking to me about my baby son. I can't remember what she said to me except these words; 'I should not have been breast feeding him and I had no rights to him.'
I was extremely shocked, I believed that he was mine. She then placed in front of me some papers and told me to sign them: they were adoption papers.
Numbly I signed them.
As I was in complete shock I returned to my bed immediately, my baby was taken away and a nurse bound my breasts tightly and painfully to dry up my baby's milk.
I never saw my baby again.
Can we as a parliament or as individuals even begin to imagine what that must feel like? Many young women were traumatised by the harsh treatment they received under these policies. I am sure all in this place will agree the delivery of a national apology for forced adoption was well overdue.
The Senate report says that forced adoption affected not only mothers who were compelled to have their children adopted but also fathers, husbands, subsequent children, the adopted people themselves and their adoptive families. Some adopted people indicated in their submissions that their adoptive parents cared for them very well, and I quote from a witness:
I wish to state right here and now that I categorically feel no hatred or bitterness towards my birth or first adoptive families!!!!
Most adopted people who made submissions did not have positive experiences with their adoptive parents, or at school, and that is why this apology needs to deal with not only the parents who lost their children but also those who were actually removed and all the other people who were affected by these removals. Again I quote personal experience that my older brother Robert relayed to me when I met him later in life. He said he came home from school and his three siblings were gone. He did not know where they had gone and if he would ever see them again, and this had an enormous effect on him.
Approximately 150,000 to 250,000 babies of unwed and mostly teenage mothers were adopted by childless married couples from the 1950s until the mid-seventies in Australia. It is important that today we as a parliament have acknowledged the pain and suffering separated parents and their children experienced. We as a parliament have apologised, and I recognise that we can never, ever make up for the trauma, the pain of loss and the disconnection and separation caused by the forced adoption process you went through. Our apology is to recognise that pain, and hopefully for many you can now move into a phase of your lives that sees you and your families start to heal. We have heard the Prime Minister commit to funding mental health services, and that is a good thing. I hope those funds find their way to those services that will assist you.
In a nation like ours, where our expectation is that we nurture, care for and love our children and provide them with the security of a safe, happy life in their formative years, we have seen many examples of that not happening. We have seen the abuse and torture visited upon institutionalised children that we now have a royal commission into. Today in the Great Hall we heard the recognition of and apology for the forced adoption policies of the 1950s through to the 1970s. In this place, along with state governments, we are charged with the responsibility of implementing policies that meet the expectations of child care throughout this country. We must remain vigilant and be prepared to action the wrongs and abuse we become aware of immediately and not decades later. If we do not, we have failed those who are here today who have been through that process and we will fail our children in the future—if we are not vigilant.
I support this motion. In closing, I would like to say to all the people who have been harmed by the forced adoption process and to those that have made the journey today: we have heard you, we believe you and we feel for you. I hope today's formal apology, even if only in a small way, can contribute to lighten the burdens of your past.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (13:10): by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the motion relating to the national apology for forced adoption and removal policies and practices be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (13:11): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (13:12): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 11, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (13:12): I have not seen the Clerk look so anxious for some time—hoping someone was here to speak on this bill. Clerk, I am here; I am trying to be as dependable as your good self. I rise to speak on the government's Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012. The bill before the House seeks to introduce the fourth tranche of MySuper legislation and also makes governance changes flowing from the Cooper review into superannuation.
MySuper is a new, supposedly low-cost superannuation product that replaces existing default superannuation fund products. If the passage of the third tranche of MySuper legislation last year, the coalition scored a significant policy victory for Australians planning for their retirement. They were at risk of having their savings transferred automatically, without their prior approval, to a government legislated MySuper account. The government was originally seeking to move two separate amendments in the consideration in detail of this bill. We now understand that the government has adopted one of our amendments and we are very pleased and encouraged to hear this.
The coalition will now withdraw our amendment which we had already circulated under Mr Hockey's name during the consideration-in-detail stage of the debate and, instead, move a revised amendment. The revised amendment relates to the Cooper review recommendation that an equal representation model should be adopted on superannuation boards. Recommendation 2.7 of the Cooper review stated:
For those boards that have equal representation because their company constitutions or other binding arrangements so require, the SIS Act should be amended so that no less than one-third of the total number of member representative trustee‐directors must be non-associated and no less than one-third of employer representative trustee-directors—
Government members interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: Thank you; I am getting some encouragement to elaborate on these key quotes! As I was saying:
… trustee-directors must be non-associated.
The government has failed to act on this recommendation.
The coalition will move amendments to require that superannuation boards contain one-third in number of independent directors or trustees. Only the most efficient and competitive superannuation system, with the highest standards of corporate governance, will deliver the best possible value to superannuation fund members. Continuing to improve corporate governance in the superannuation industry will help to increase Australians' level of confidence in the system. This in turn will encourage additional voluntary superannuation contributions. It is time to bring a greater degree of independence to the boards of union dominated industry superannuation funds.
Our second amendment, which we have flagged, will seek to allow trustees of MySuper accounts greater flexibility in how they charge fees, especially in relation to administration fees that are asset based. The government has now seen the light on this issue and is seeking to move its own version of this amendment today. I will have more to say about that shortly. If our amendment is unsuccessful, the coalition will not oppose the passage of this bill through the House.
The bill contains a range of specific changes to superannuation laws which relate to governance arrangements and obligations. The first of these changes seeks to amend the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act to override any provision in the governing rules of an APRA regulated fund. These rules require the trustee to use a specified service provider in relation to any services in respect of the fund. These amendments came from a recommendation also out of the Cooper review. They seek to mandate governing rules requiring the use of certain service providers to limit trustee ability in order to determine if such an arrangement was in the best interests of fund members. The review noted that trustees should still be able to appoint a named service provider if it is in the best interests of the members, but should not be bound to do so.
The bill also amends the SI(S) Act to provide APRA with the power to issue infringement notices for certain breaches of the act. APRA currently has the power to issue infringement notices but only for the late lodgement of data returns. The Cooper review recommended that APRA be given the power to impose infringement notices and fines as an alternative to criminal prosecution for certain offences. The new power applies to a range of existing breaches, including not putting the required contributions into a MySuper account, not notifying as soon as practicable each beneficiary about an acting trustee's appointment, not having rules in place for the appointment of member or independent representatives when required to do so, not meeting APRA's deadline for receipt of a report relating to an investigation, and funds accepting contributions by an employer sponsor contrary to the regulator's written notice to the fund's trustees.
This bill also seeks to require trustees to give complainants reasons for their decisions in relation to a complaint where a complainant requests such reasons. The complainant must make a request in writing. A response must be provided within 28 days, though ASIC may permit longer periods for reasons to be given in the case of death benefit complaints.
The bill seeks to remove a regulatory exemption where the RSE, or registrable superannuation entity, also manages a non-superannuation managed investment scheme. Some RSE licensees, in addition to managing RSEs, are also the responsible entity of one or more non-superannuation registered management investment schemes. Generally the responsible entity controlling a managed investment scheme must comply with a range of general obligations under section 912A of the Corporations Act 2001. Currently bodies regulated by APRA, including RSE licensees, are exempt from the requirements set out in paragraphs 912A(1)(d) and (h) of the act.
RSE licensees are required to satisfy risk management requirements and requirements for adequate resources of a human, technological and financial variety imposed under the SI(S) Act and SI(S) regulations. However, these requirements are not designed to ensure that adequate resources or risk management systems are maintained in respect of the non-superannuation business of RSE licensees that also manage registered managed investment schemes. The Cooper review recommended that dual regulated entities meet Corporations Act financial resource requirements. These changes remove the regulatory exemption. Whilst generally supportive of this change, certain stakeholders expressed a desire to ensure that this does not increase capital backing requirements through the duplication of responsibilities.
The bill requires complainants to seek leave from the court to bring on an action where a director has been accused of having breached their duties under the SI(S) Act. In order to grant leave, the court must take into account whether the applicant is acting in good faith and whether there is a serious question to be heard. These amendments are designed to prevent frivolous and vexatious legal action being brought against directors. The amendments also give directors a defence of having acted with 'reasonable precaution' or if a 'reasonable mistake' was made in relation to a MySuper obligation. These defences are already available if directors act in contravention of a covenant.
The bill also contains a range of consequential amendments which amend the SI(S) Act. The measures contained in this bill are broadly supported across the superannuation industry and the coalition does not oppose them. However, once again the government has been forced to bring in a raft of changes to its own legislation after it has been introduced. These changes follow an inquiry by the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which found many serious issues in the bill. It is good to see the government does occasionally recognise its mistakes and adopt measures put forward by the coalition, such as the cap on fees. We will not oppose these changes and will withdraw our amendment on fee caps.
This bill is the fourth, and the government anticipates last, tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper proposal that arose from the Cooper review. The first bill, tranche one, established core provisions of MySuper which included rules around the charging of fees in relation to member accounts. This included, in effect, a ban on caps for administrative fees. As paragraph 6.14 of the explanatory memorandum of the tranche one bill discussed:
For any fee that applies to all members of the MySuper product, such as an administration fee or an investment fee, each member is to be charged the fee under the same charging rule. For example, if one member is charged a percentage of their account balance in relation to the MySuper product as an administration fee then each member of the MySuper product should be charged the same percentage of their account balance in relation to the MySuper product at the same point in time.
This caused an adverse reaction among industry stakeholders at the time. These stakeholders as well as the coalition were anticipating that the government's current and final MySuper bill tranche 4, the one before us now, would include amendments to remove this unnecessary and counter-productive requirement. However, such amendments were not forthcoming by the government.
Another one of the government's amendments, which is to be considered today, is moving the final composition of the product dashboard into regulations. This is an acknowledgement that the government could not get a consensus on what information would be given to consumers as a quick way of comparing funds. We will not oppose this change; however, we do put the government on notice to be balanced in its approach and not to favour their mates who are in industry super funds.
One of the measures removed by these amendments was the measure of liquidity. For some reason the industry super funds were opposed to this being included. If it does not appear in the regulations then the government will have some serious questions to answer. The product dashboard cannot be about promoting the interests of one part of the industry alone. We reserve the right to change the composition of the product dashboard if this government gets it wrong.
As I mentioned, the bill before the House represents the government's fourth tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper proposals that followed the Cooper review into superannuation handed down some 2½ years ago. The coalition has along the way sought to improve the government's legislation as it has haphazardly implemented the findings from the review. The coalition has moved a vast number of amendments seeking to close anomalies and amend legislation to avoid unintended consequences as this government has rushed through changes. Most recently we scored a significant policy victory by ensuring that Australians' choices were preserved and superannuation balances were not automatically transferred without their prior approval to a government legislated MySuper account.
The coalition, as a way forward for Australia and those interested in their retirement savings, has begun consulting with a cross-section of senior superannuation industry stakeholders and experts. The coalition is acutely aware of the threat this government is planning to pose on the nation's retirement savings system in the form of more new taxes on superannuation savings in order to help Labor plug its deteriorating budget this coming May.
To date this Labor government has hit Australians' savings with more than $8 billion in increased taxes and charges on superannuation over the last five years since coming to government and $3.3 billion of this has come from this government's hit on low-income earners through their various reductions to the government super co-contributions scheme established under the previous coalition government. The government reduced the contribution from $1,500 to just $500. The government is also lowering the thresholds at which they phase out.
A coalition government, if we were able to earn the support of the Australian public at the next election, would look to provide certainty and stability in superannuation by not making unexpected detrimental changes to the superannuation system in the next term. This would allow people to save for their retirement and to plan with confidence. A coalition government, if elected, plans to: increase the compulsory superannuation contribution from nine per cent to 12 per cent; improve corporate governance arrangements for superannuation; properly address the issue of excess contributions to make sure Australians saving for their retirements are not unfairly penalised for genuine unintended errors; pursue opportunities to cut unnecessary red tape in superannuation; remove regulatory barriers currently restricting product innovation and improved options to manage financial risks in the retirement phase; and revisit concessional contribution caps and super co-contributions for lower income earners once the budget is back in a strong enough position.
And, finally, a coalition government will conduct a financial systems inquiry, which will include the superannuation industry. A coalition government will continue to consult with the broad cross-section of stakeholders in the superannuation industry in the lead up to this year's election.
As stated at the outset, I will be moving an amendment circulated in the name of Mr Hockey during the consideration in detail stage of this bill and I can also foreshadow that the coalition will allow the government's own amendments to this bill to pass through the parliament without objection.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Withdrawal
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (13:27): by leave—I move:
That orders of the day Nos 2 to 5, government business, be discharged.
The Minister for Communications and the Digital Economy, when announcing this package of legislation relating to the media, made it clear that the government would not be pursuing these reforms beyond this week if it did not secure the support of the parliament. It is clear to me that it does not have the support of the House of Representatives to proceed. Therefore, I move this motion. I thank the shadow minister for communications for the cooperative way in which he has dealt with the procedural issues around this legislation even though we have different policy positions on some of the issues before the House.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (13:28): This is a humiliating backdown by the government today. Only a week ago the communications minister and the Prime Minister announced a set of so-called reforms to the media laws of this country that would for the first time in our history put a government official in a position where he or she was able to influence, indeed, control the content of newspapers and other media that has never been regulated by government in our history. We were told that there would be no bartering with the cross benches, that this was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
Over the last 48 hours the bartering with the crossbenchers has been so intense that, as recently as this morning, the government was proposing to support an amendment by Mr Katter that would have had the result of the so-called Public Interest Media Advocate—this all-powerful media regulator—being appointed by a panel of 12 people, who would have in turn been appointed by the Council of the Order of Australia, which is a body composed of representatives of states, territories and the Commonwealth for the purpose of awarding Australian honours.
This was policy on the run. It was galloping along in a desperate effort to preserve the Prime Minister's position, to preserve Julia Gillard. The government had become the Julia Gillard Preservation Society. The Labor Party had so lost control of itself, had so lost control of any sense of responsibility, good government and due process that it was going to outsource its policy-making functions to the member for Kennedy—or, indeed, to anyone else on the crossbench who could come up with an interesting idea that might just be able to get something across the line.
It was a reminder of the same chaotic performance that we saw from this Prime Minister after the collapse of the original resource super-profits tax that Prime Minister Rudd had proposed. When that fell over, in desperation to get something done after she had deposed Mr Rudd, what did she do? She sat down with the three largest mining companies in the country, sent the officials out of the room and allowed them to write the tax law. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the champions of the people, so they assert, standing up against the billionaires, advocates for the proletariat, these defenders of the horny-handed sons of toil, these Labor heroes, were allowing the biggest mining companies in Australia to write the tax. And that was because they were desperate to get anything passed.
And that is what we nearly had today—exactly the same desperation, except instead of the mining companies it was in fact the member for Kennedy and any other crossbenchers that were prepared to be involved. But, as the member for Denison said, this process has been completely shambolic. It was too humiliating, too embarrassing; it demeaned the parliament to be debating a bill only a few days ago which gave enormous powers to a Public Interest Media Advocate, the nature of which, the appointment of which, the term of which, the number of which, was completely up in the air as they were doing backroom deals with the Independents.
At some point the shame, the humiliation, the embarrassment became too much. What the Leader of the House has done today is acknowledge that these bills are too much of an embarrassment even for this government and they have been abandoned—utterly abandoned. Connected to that, no doubt, is Simon Crean's call for there to be a spill, in order to reinstate the member for Griffith as the leader of the Labor Party and presumably Prime Minister. This is a chaotic and humiliating moment, perhaps one of the last moments, for a government that has betrayed every ounce of responsibility, of due process and of good government. The best decision the new Prime Minister could make—if indeed the member for Griffith does return as Prime Minister—is to go straight to Government House and let the Australian people cast their judgment on this sorry Labor mess.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:33): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): No, there are forums in which—
Mr KATTER: But if I have the call, I will take advantage of it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you—
Mr KATTER: Do I have the call?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have the call to speak on the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House?
Mr Albanese: I am just concluding the debate and then, if the member wants to make a personal explanation, he is certainly entitled to do so.
Mr Turnbull: He is entitled to speak on the motion if he wishes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear what the Leader of the House said. The member for Kennedy: if you wish to speak on the motion, you have the call.
Mr KATTER: Thank you very much. The previous speaker made a number of allegations about me which were entirely incorrect. Not only were they incorrect but he knew they were incorrect. He is an intelligent person; no-one would ever deny that—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will be speaking to the motion before the House. If you want to make a personal explanation, that is a different matter.
Mr KATTER: No, it is not a personal explanation—I am speaking to the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy has the call.
Mr KATTER: But, in speaking to the motion, my position—once I could understand what was taking place here—was taken behind closed doors. Our decision was made behind a locked door. It was not made in conjunction or negotiation with the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. I most certainly spoke to all of those people; it would have been improper if I had not spoken to them. I spoke to the honourable opposition spokesman. I spoke to the people on the other side as well. But my decision was taken behind a locked door—and that was not to accept the Liberal Party position, which was to continue with a corporate lapdog called the Press Council.
If the honourable spokesman comes into this place and wants to look after the interests of the corporates, from which he comes—his own group and his own background—then I applaud him for at least being honest. But don't come in here and try and portray me as going along with the ALP proposition. The whole of the Australian public saw the ALP proposition as the Thought Police—let's be honest. So this mob wants a corporate lapdog, and this mob want a government attack dog. It would be nice if someone in this place thought that the people of Australia might have a watchdog to protect their interests. At all times I moved my own piece of legislation saying that the watchdog would be set up by an entirely independent body—nothing to do with government—and that body would have some teeth to stop media concentration.
The honourable spokesman for the opposition, let's face it, would have been talking to these people. He would already know the media concentrations that they are moving towards. That may be in the interests of the corporate classes in Sydney; it is most certainly not in the interests of any single person in this country outside the corporate interests in Sydney, which the honourable member obviously represents.
We put forward a proposition—and how could anyone think this was unreasonable?—that a panel be appointed by the Australian Press Council. They are entitled to some representation. Most certainly and importantly, the Australian journalists association are entitled to some representation. Then, finally, six of those positions would be selected by the Australian people, not by politicians but by people at a great distance. Who can you pick out in Australia to do that job who are respected? I think the people that decide upon the decorations—the people who give out the OAMs and the AMs—have done a marvellous job over the years. They are very much at distance from government. They have absolutely nothing to do with government. They have an independent appointment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kennedy, reluctant as I am to interrupt, I know you are talking about the bills, but we are now talking about the motion, which is to discharge orders of the day Nos 2 to 5. I bring you to the motion before the House. I have been very generous in giving you the call and allowing you to continue in the way you have. I ask the member to come to the motion before the chamber.
Mr KATTER: I am not against the withdrawal of the bills. They were contaminated by a position called PIMA. My legislation will go forward. If no-one in this place decides to support it, so be it. Let the people of Australia judge them. Perhaps they think we should continue with a corporate lap-dog and that there should be a free-fire zone where a concentration of media power can reach the same outcome that we have got with Woolworths and Coles, where farmers are paid nothing and our food prices are amongst some of the highest in the world. I use an example of concentration of market power. When you deregulated the dairy industry the price for farmers went down 30 per cent and within 18 months it went up 41c.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kennedy.
Mr KATTER: No, Mr Deputy Speaker, please, let me continue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are a long way off the motion before the House—
Mr KATTER: No, I am not. Deputy Speaker, with due respect—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the motion is to discharge orders of the day Nos 2 to 5 of government business, and that is the motion we are debating.
Mr KATTER: I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the essence—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The motion before the chamber is quite clear. It has been moved by the Leader of the House to discharge orders of the day Nos 2 to 5, government business. I know there are other issues to do with dairying and other things, but those things are not part of the motion that we are debating. You have to be relevant to the motion before the House. I call the member for Kennedy and ask him to confine his remarks to the motion before the House.
Mr KATTER: To complete my sentence, the issue of food is very important, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you would agree that it is very important. But just as important are the workings of democracy. The High Court has held again and again that there must be fairness. If you have a monopoly position in the media then you must act as if you do not have a monopoly position. I quote the Wire, BHP case, where the High Court held almost unanimously that you must act in a fair and responsible manner. But if you have a concentration of media power then, quite frankly, you can do what you like. You are answerable to nobody. I most certainly would not be game to take on the press barons, and I do not think anyone else here with a sense of personal survival would be game to do so.
If we put in place a watchdog, a protective mechanism, that would be a good outcome. I must be fair to the government and say that, whilst they contaminated beyond belief a good proposal that there be some restrictions upon the concentration of media power and whilst they contaminated it with the PIMA proposal, let us have a watchdog over the concentration of media power and let that watchdog be set up by people who are visibly at a distance, at arm's length, from the government, and I will be proceeding with that legislation. If people in this place are genuine then I think I will receive unanimous support. If they are playing party games then I think I won't.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (13:42): I thank the members for their contribution.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:43): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012. Happily, on 29 November last year, the House of Representatives referred this bill to the PJC and we undertook an inquiry in Melbourne on 22 January and reported to the House on 5 February. We made nine recommendations. In taking testimony from a number of witnesses, we were key players in the area of superannuation. We were able to make recommendations, in large part, which have been acknowledged by the government and incorporated into the amendments that are before the parliament this afternoon.
In the very short period of time that remains to be allocated to this debate, I want to acknowledge the contributions of the Financial Services Council, particularly Mr Andrew Bragg; the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the contributions of Ms Pauline Vamos and Ms Fiona Galbraith; the Law Council of Australia, Ms Pamela McAlister; Industry Super Network, Mr Richard Watts; the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, Mr David Haynes; and, from Treasury, Mr Jonathan Rollings, who made a significant contribution to our inquiry and provided us with critical evidence which informed the amendments which I commend to the House on this day. I recommend that the amendments in the bill be passed by the parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Flynn Electorate: Calliope Bulls and Bands Flood Appeal
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:45): On Saturday, 9 March this year, over 3,000 people attended the Bulls and Bands flood appeal in Calliope, a town just west of Gladstone, in support of those affected by the recent flooding in the Gladstone region. The areas hit locally included the Boyne Valley, Boyne Island and Tannum Sands. The event was a resounding success and raised a considerable sum of money, which will go a long way in helping with recovery efforts. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the event but I am reliably informed that rodeo goers were treated to some great music, lively barrel racing and some rank bulls!
Congratulations goes to the winners of the respective events on the night. Also, I want to congratulate the Calliope Rodeo committee and all others involved in organising the event for their outstanding efforts. I would also like to thank those who generously sponsored the show and all those who donated on the night.
Flood recovery efforts continue right throughout Flynn electorate. Events like this show the strong community spirit that is alive and well in the Gladstone region.
Bass Electorate: Northern Cancer Support Centre
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise in the House today to speak about the Northern Cancer Support Centre, recently opened by the Governor of Tasmania, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, and the Hon. Michelle O'Byrne. The centre is located in Launceston. It aims to enable those affected by cancer to access practical and emotional support when they need it. This is a $4.3 million project funded by Cancer Council Tasmania and the Australian and Tasmania governments as part of the Regional Cancer Centre project, supported by the federal Health and Hospitals Fund.
This state-of-the-art building is located within a short stroll from the Launceston General Hospital and WP Holman Clinic. It will be a place where there will be support for people diagnosed with cancer, and their families, friends and carers, through all stages of their cancer journey. The centre not only will assist with some of the more practical concerns of living with cancer but it will also seek to ease some of the emotions of a cancer diagnosis, through psychological support and advice in a caring environment.
This concept has the strong support of clinical leaders in cancer services for northern Tasmania, other cancer organisations operating in northern Tasmania, and the wider community. I understand that the centre and its programs will be guided by expert clinical advice to ensure the highest standard of care. I thank all those who have had a role to play in developing this magnificent centre for the electorate of Bass.
Gillard Government
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:47): I want to comment on the spectacle we have seen this week from this government. It has been absolutely disgraceful. The disunity and the chaos we have seen on the other side has all come to a head today. My constituents in Central and North Queensland are absolutely outraged. While this government is worrying about one job—the question of who will be Prime Minister—my constituents are worried about jobs in their area. Job security is the number one issue, followed by the cost of living. We have people losing jobs on a daily basis. We have businesses closing down. Another one came to me today and told me they were closing down and all their employees were going. This is happening on a weekly basis throughout Central and North Queensland. Businesses are closing down because of the downturn in the mining industry caused by this government's policies. Car dealers, car hire companies and businesses in the mining services sector are all closing down with their jobs being shed.
And what have we got from this government? A squalid debacle. A fight between the members for Lalor, Griffith and Hotham over who is going to have the prime ministership. This is not helping my constituents. This is all about power. It is not about people. Politics should be about the people. I say: let the people have a say now. Forget the leadership spill. Let's have an election.
National Apology for Forced Adoptions
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:49): I rise on this very significant day in Australia's national history to put on the record my response to the National Apology for Forced Adoption. In particular, I want to acknowledge the member for Swan's participation in the debate as a personal advocate for a life lived with some uncertainty about his connection with place and family. I also want to add to that my acknowledgment of one of the members of my great electorate, Robertson, on the Central Coast, in the formidable form of a wonderful woman by the name of Robin Turner. Anybody who has been involved in the process of bringing this day into being would know that Robin has been a long and steady advocate for achieving this apology today. I want to place on the record in this place today an acknowledgement of her significant contribution to the telling of this shameful and sad part of our history and her dedication to that task. The dignity and courage of her convictions are evident in the way she has attacked this task. It was a great pleasure to see her in the chamber today to be able to hear those remarks from the Attorney-General and from the member for Swan. I thank the House.
Victorian Junior Lifesaving Championships
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:50): I rise—and I am sure it is on behalf of members of both sides of the chamber—to wish the competitors well for this weekend's Victorian Junior Lifesaving Championships, being held in Lorne. Somewhere in excess of 1,000 junior surf lifesavers, or nippers, as we call them, will be competing in Lorne this weekend. From my own perspective, from the seat of Gippsland, we will have youngsters from the Lakes Entrance and Seaspray clubs, who will represent us with distinction over the weekend.
On a separate but related point, there have been three tragic deaths on public beaches in Victoria in the past two weeks. In every case it involved beaches that were not patrolled. I urge people on these last few remaining warm days at the end of the Victorian summer to please heed the warnings and the messages provided by our surf lifesaving movement. Always swim on patrolled beaches and swim between the flags. Never swim alone and certainly do not swim when under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. We have an outstanding service right across our nation with our surf lifesaving movement. The support they provide to beachgoers is extraordinarily important for regional and coastal communities around our nation.
So, in conclusion, I certainly wish all the youngsters well in the Victorian surf-lifesaving championships this weekend but I also thank and commend our surf-lifesaving volunteers from across our nation for the service they have provided for us again this summer.
FASHFEST
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:52): It is with great pleasure that I inform the House that Canberra's FASHFEST will be running from 1-4 May this year. FASHFEST is a four-night showcase of Canberra's fashion, culture and local talent, because Canberra really is becoming a fashion savvy city. We are getting a name as a fashion hub and our shops reflect the way fashion is taken seriously in the national capital.
FASHFEST is about showcasing our style and culture and bringing to attention local talent and entrepreneurs. Over four fantastic nights, FASHFEST highlights a huge collection of designers and creatives. There will be nightly designer fashion shows and live performances by top musical artists and DJs. The idea for FASHFEST began with founding directors Andrea and Clint Hutchinson, a husband and wife team who are very passionate about Canberra. For Andrea and Clint, FASHFEST is about changing the way people see Canberra.
The line-up of talent and support is exciting, beginning with the face of FASHFEST, the internationally renowned supermodel Anneliese Seubert. Anneliese has appeared on the runway for the world's top designers including Christian Dior and Giorgio Armani but now lives here in Canberra. I congratulate ZOO Advertising and everyone involved in this year's FASHFEST. As artistic Director Sara Poguet puts it: 'FASHFEST is going to be something out of this world that is full of creativity, and it's all from Canberra. We're blessed with an abundance of talent here and FASHFEST is the way for us to show it, not only to those living in the ACT, but to the rest of Australia and even, hopefully, the world.' Visit www.fashfest.com.au. (Time expired)
Esmore, Professor Donald, AO
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:53): I was recently contacted by a number of my constituents who have advised me of the very sad passing of Professor Don Esmore AO who, like so many medical practitioners around the country, saved the lives of many thousands of Australians.
Professor Esmore is credited with starting up the heart and lung transplant program at the Alfred Hospital which is on the border of my electorate. This program is one of the most respected transplant programs in the world. Professor Esmore was also the first surgeon to implant the Australian designed and made VentrAssist device which is a device that replaces a patient's heart function without the need to remove the patient's heart.
Professor Esmore's story is simply even more remarkable, though. Despite being diagnosed with myeloma, an as yet incurable bone marrow cancer, in 2002, he continued to practice medicine selflessly to help save the lives of numerous Australians. What an outstanding example he is for all of us in his selflessness. Quite rightly he has been lauded for his remarkable achievements. Professor Esmore was awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia in 2001, the Centenary Medal in 2003 and was a state finalist for the Australian of the Year in 2008. I take the opportunity in the parliament today to pay tribute to Professor Esmore and the team at the Alfred hospital who continue to provide such an important service to people right around the country.
Bass Electorate: Bridport Surf Life Saving Club
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:55): I rise to congratulate the Bridport Surf Life Saving Club in my electorate of Bass for their bronze medallion in last weekend's state senior surf-lifesaving titles. The reserve grade boat crew, consisting of Brian Grant, Jason Street, Brett Williams, Shaun Moore and Ross Smith, battled large waves and stormy weather to win the bronze. This newly formed Bridport Surf Life Saving Club, the newest club in Tasmania, is only in its first year of official competition and its second season of rowing. What a terrific achievement, to get a bronze medallion, for such a new club. They are rowing a second-hand boat, which was given to them by the Whale Beach Surf Life Saving Club in New South Wales, with second-hand oars on the second-hand boat.
I would like to thank the Attorney-General in Tasmania, the Hon. Brian Wightman, and the crown lands department for their assistance. After two years of planning, this club has gone through and in Bridport will soon move from two containers to a club-house building. A third in the state title by the Bridport Surf Life Saving Club is a wonderful effort for this new surf-lifesaving club. I urge everybody in Australia to please bathe where there are surf-lifesavers. Every death should be avoided and the only way for that to happen on Australian beaches is to bathe between the flags.
Labor Party Policy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:56): I rise to speak on this wonderful day of Harmony Day—a day when we can all come together and hold hands and sing Kumbaya! Let the sun shine in! But, on this Harmony Day, what a rabble and a farce we are seeing on the other side of the House. But the problem is not with the personalities; the problem is with the policies. We have seen the most disgraceful array of policies from that side of the chamber, from GroceryWatch to the carbon tax. We have seen Australian families and small businesses putting up with almost a doubling of their electricity prices under this government. We have seen a loss of control of our borders. We have seen the pink batts tragedy. We have seen the overpriced school halls, the mining tax, the live cattle disaster, the set-top box fiasco—the list goes on and on and on. And now we are going to see the most farcical question time in the history of this chamber.
It is time for this government to finally call it off—to go. The public have had enough. Your time is over. It is time for an election, to give the public their say, to get rid of— (Time expired)
New South Wales Government
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:58): For all the yelling this week about rights being inhibited, individual rights being inhibited and about the Liberal Party standing up for rights, yesterday the New South Wales Liberals abolished the right to silence—the most disgraceful thing to ever happen to the judicial system in New South Wales!
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms ROWLAND: This week they have lectured us about civil liberties—lectured us about freedom of speech. And what do their mates do in New South Wales? Abolish the right to silence. One law to abolish—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will be quiet!
Ms ROWLAND: the right to silence, allowing individual juries to draw an adverse inference if people accused of a crime chose not to take part in police interviews but later relied on evidence they did not disclose.
The right to silence since time immemorial has provided significant legal safeguards for people who come before the justice system, especially those who are vulnerable—people like Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who suffer some of the worst rates of incarceration in this country. But what do the Liberals do? Abolish the right to silence that will see even more Aboriginal people get incarcerated. Those on that side of the House are very big on talk when it comes to their little civil liberties bandwagons, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are, they abolish the right to silence—a fundamental right in New South Wales, gone. It is a disgrace.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Can I remind individuals—
An honourable member: It's going to be an easy day today!
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned!
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: It was not you? It sounded like you as usual. But can I remind members that latitude and tolerance is not something I intend giving today, of all days, and numerous people here may want it more than anything—and the person who has just taken the photograph, even if it was unintentional, is warned! That is an absolute abuse of every principle in this chamber.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): by leave—I inform the House that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will answer questions as the acting Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and the acting Minister for the Arts. For the information of the House, I have determined that there will be a ballot for the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labor Party at 4.30 today. In the meantime, take your best shot.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Labor Government
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the minister for regional Australia that the government is in deadlock and no longer capable of discharging its duty to the Australian people?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): I most certainly do not, and the suggestion is absurd. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, during the course of today he and I, in a bipartisan spirit, have been engaged in some very important business for the Australian nation. He should also be aware that during the course of this parliamentary week, even while all eyes have been on the media debate, we have continued to govern in the interests of the nation by pursuing the legislation for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. At the same time, as a government we continue to work with Australians around the nation in making sure that we keep our economy strong and offer people the benefit of work. And it is during the last fortnight that we received the news that more than 70,000 jobs were created in our country in a month, bringing to more than 900,000 the number of jobs created since this government came to office, meaning we are well on our way to creating a million jobs.
During the course of this week and last I have pursued what is the transformative opportunity agenda for our nation, and that is making sure that we better fund schools, that we improve schools and that we have new improvements and new resources that truly mean every Australian child gets a great education and gets the benefits of the opportunities that are coming for our nation during this the Asian century of growth and change.
As the Leader of the Opposition may also be aware—we were certainly talking about it in question time yesterday—we have determined to keep supporting families with all the stresses and strains they face today, including cost-of-living pressures. We did that as recently as yesterday by securing new increases for 3.5 million pensioners around the country who need the support of government and would not get that support extended to them in the same way, at the same dimension, if the government were to change and if the Leader of the Opposition ever became Prime Minister given that he has said very, very clearly that he is committed to cutbacks for these Australians who need care and support the most.
The government will continue to pursue the agenda that we have set for ourselves and the Australian nation. It is about being smarter. It is about being stronger. It is about being fairer. It is about making sure that a strong economy is ready for this century of change and growth. It is about making sure that a strong economy offers benefits to all, rather than the enrichment of just a few. And it about supporting modern families with their everyday pressures. This is the agenda that drives us, and it continues to drive us even today. We will make progress on it, so I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the answer to his question is no.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): How can the Prime Minister expect the Australian people to be convinced by that answer and that litany when plainly she has not been able to convince the minister for regional Australia in the case she has just argued, someone who is not just her minister but an elder statesman of the Labor Party and a former leader of the Labor Party?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:05): My colleague the Minister for Health points out the irony of that remark, indicating that you have not said too many charitable things about the member for Hotham in the past. Can I say too before the Leader of the Opposition gets too carried away with eulogising former leaders that he might want to make an assessment about what some of the former leaders of his political party say about him. Maybe the member for Wentworth might be able to elaborate for us on that very topic.
The government has been continuing to pursue its agenda and continuing to resist the opposition's plans for cutbacks for Australian families which would undermine their opportunity to share in the life of our nation and hold them outside the benefits of prosperity and growth. This has been, and always will be, the fundamental divide between our political parties: us committed to jobs, you having opposed jobs; us committed to fairness and ensuring that the benefit of a strong economy flows to all, you opposing each and every day those benefits and saying that, if you are ever elected, they will be very directly ripped away. This is the political debate in our country. This is what drives the government today and will drive us in the days beyond today.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): Speaker, I ask a further supplementary question, again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with former Prime Minister Bob Hawke that if you cannot govern yourselves you cannot govern the country?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:07): I certainly believe that as a government you have to keep your focus on the things that matter to the Australian people, and that is where my focus is. As Prime Minister my focus is and continues to be on those things that make a difference for families around the nation. Certainly when I speak to families around the nation it is crystal clear that nothing is more important to them than having the benefits of work so that there is a pay packet, or more than one pay packet, coming in the door. They certainly want to keep as much of that pay packet as possible, which is why our reforms in taxation have made such a difference. They want their child to get a great-quality education. They want to know that there is a doctor in their community and a hospital that can function for them if their family is in need. They want to see the new benefits that would come with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They want to see us as a nation continuing to grow ever stronger but also sharing that prosperity with all.
That is the government's mission. I understand that it is resisted at every level by the Leader of the Opposition, but in our democracy that is the nature of contests. We stand for a strong economy; you have stood for weakening it. We stand for supporting modern families with the pressures they face; you stand for taking away benefits from them. Such is the contest, and the government will continue to join that debate as we continue to guide the nation to a stronger, fairer and smarter future.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:08): I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Fahad Balghunaim, Minister of Agriculture in the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. My apologies: a lot is going on today, and I did not practice pronouncing his name sufficiently! On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
I also inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Dr Zalmai Rassoul, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to all our visitors this afternoon.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): I seek leave to move that this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister.
Leave not granted.
Mr ABBOTT: I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:
That this House declares no confidence in the Prime Minister.
This is about the decent, honest, hardworking people of Australia, who deserve a strong, stable and competent government. This is about reassuring the Australian people that we are a great people and we are a great country, just momentarily let down by our very poor government—an incompetent and chaotic government that just gets worse and worse with each passing hour, let alone each passing day. This is about the people of Australia, their welfare and what they deserve from government, which is competence and honesty, and that is what they have failed to get from this government.
Standing orders must be suspended to enable this matter to be discussed forthwith, because not only does the coalition have no confidence in this Prime Minister but, plainly, senior members of her own government no longer have confidence in this Prime Minister. We have just heard a remarkable statement from the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—a decent, honourable man and yes, a political opponent of mine and of members on this side of the House—
Government members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: I would ask members opposite to show sufficient respect for a former leader of their party and a decent, honest member of the extended Labor family for me to repeat what he said in this building just a short while ago: this is a government in deadlock. This is a government in crisis. This is a government that can no longer go on as it has gone on over recent days and weeks and months. What the minister for regional Australia has done is pronounce against this Prime Minister and against this government, while this Prime Minister happens to be leading it, the immortal words, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand'. That is the classic judgement that the minister for regional Australia has pronounced against his own government and the Prime Minister, and that is why standing orders must be suspended, because this cannot go on. The people of Australia deserve a strong and stable government, but what is absolutely crystal clear is that that cannot continue under this Prime Minister.
We know that these are difficult times for our country. There is a continuing economic crisis in much of Europe. We cannot be confident that economic growth in China will continue at the current rate forever. We have the Treasury itself indicating that budget deficits will continue at high levels at least until 2017. At a time like this, more than ever, our country needs strong and stable government, yet clearly it is never going to get it—at least not from this Prime Minister. If we look at just the last fortnight, at all the panicked measures this government has brought before this parliament—not for the good of our country but for the survival of the Prime Minister in particular—we realise that this is a government that has lost its way, not a good government that has lost its way but a very poor government that has lost its way, a government that, if the honest truth were to be known, most members opposite now feel embarrassed about.
We had the coal-seam gas changes rushed into this chamber without any serious consultation with the industry, without any serious consultation with the gas providers who, at least in some states, are running out of supplies. We had $300 million in borrowed money for childcare workers, we had $1.2 billion in borrowed money for aged care workers but—this is the interesting thing—not more money for poorly paid workers, which obviously no decent Australian would begrudge. The extraordinary thing is that this turns out to be conditional on an EBA negotiated with the relevant union. In other words, this is a taxpayer funded recruitment drive for the unions that this Prime Minister's leadership depends upon.
Then, of course, we had the disgraceful attack on the skilled migrants, who are so important for this country's present and future. Finally, we had the media changes that were absolutely vital for the national interest just a few days ago and have now been humiliatingly withdraw from the parliament because this Prime Minister was not big enough to declare that these were matters of confidence in her and confidence in her government and require the Independents who sustain her in power to vote for them.
Let me congratulate the crossbench members of this chamber for standing up for the sacred principles of free speech, on which our democracy does depend. Let us remind, once again, this House of the words of the Prime Minister that will haunt her to her political grave—along with the immortal statement, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—'Let's hear no sanctimonious nonsense about free speech.' Is it any wonder that crossbench members of this parliament are losing faith in this Prime Minister? This is why standing orders have to be suspended.
There has been policy failure after policy failure from this government. There is the extraordinary disaster on our borders, with boat after boat. I think we have had something like four boats in 24 hours—it just gets worse every day. This Prime Minister has completely abdicated her responsibilities to control our borders. There is the live cattle trade suspension, jeopardising our relationship with our country's most important neighbour. There is the waste in school halls that cost double the price they should have. There is the National Broadband Network, a $50 billion-plus project way behind schedule and way over budget. Until recently, there were more paid staff for the NBN than there were paying subscribers.
There is the deception, the chronic, congenital deception, that we get from this government and this Prime Minister, whether it be the deception of the member for Denison; the deception and the betrayal of the former Speaker, the member for Scullin; the deception and the betrayal of the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith; the deception and the betrayal of the Australian public over the carbon tax that was never going to happen and then had to happen; the deception and the betrayal over the budget surplus that was going to be delivered, come what may—'No ifs, no buts; it will happen'—and now, of course, is not going to happen, according to Treasury advice, until 2017; or the betrayal of Labor values.
A decent Labor person would never put his or her own political survival ahead of good government and ahead of the best interests of a once great political party, the Australian Labor Party. As members of this House know, I have seen enough of politics and I have seen enough of good people on both sides of this chamber to have some respect for the Labor Party, of which it was once said: 'There is a light on the hill, working for the betterment of mankind, not just here but wherever we can lend a helping hand.' That once great political party is now reduced to being a political life-support system for just one person: the current Prime Minister. I say to the current Prime Minister: for your party's good, you should go. For our country's good, you should go. You should go.
We are a great people. We are a great country. I very much fear that we can never reach our potential under this Prime Minister and this government. I think it is time to give the people a chance to choose the Prime Minister and to choose the government. On the 50th anniversary of the faceless men being shown in a photograph in the Daily Telegraph, I say: let's get rid of the faceless men. Let's have a new Prime Minister and a new government.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:19): Madam Speaker, I second the motion. Standing orders must be suspended because the Australian people deserve better than this Prime Minister. The Australian people deserve better than this government.
The Prime Minister clearly does not have the confidence of her own party. The Greens, the party with whom she formed an alliance, have withdrawn their support. Today, the Prime Minister was contemplating withdrawing bills she regarded as so urgent that they had to be passed this week, because she has lost the support of the members for Denison, Lyne and Dobell, all of whom she had relied upon and who were critical to propping up her chaotic government and keeping her in power. The fact is that this Prime Minister's government was founded on written agreements with the Greens, the member for Denison, the member for New England and the member for Lyne. The member for Denison had his trust betrayed by this Prime Minister and he ripped up the agreement in disgust. The Greens have ripped up their agreement with this Prime Minister because of her shambolic handling of the mining tax.
The only written agreements that remain are those with the member for New England and the member for Lyne. They must search their consciences as to whether it is in the national interest for this chaotic Prime Minister to continue to lead her chaotic government; whether they should continue to prop up the current Prime Minister with more of the instability, more of the dysfunction and more of the bad policy that we have seen under her watch; or whether they should return to the chaotic administration of the member for Griffith. They must realise that there is no hope of stability with a party that is so divided that it is beyond hope and where, if the member for Griffith is returned, the dark forces of the Prime Minister will be deployed against him.
The fact is that the Prime Minister has now lost the support of one of her strongest supporters, the minister for regional development. He has declared he would rather support the member for Griffith than put up with more of this Prime Minister's leadership. He described the member for Griffith as a prima donna, not a team player and so disloyal, but he would rather put up with the member for Griffith than have to continue to serve under this Prime Minister.
The Australian people deserve so much better than this Prime Minister. The Australian people deserve so much better than this government, that has turned governing into an embarrassing farce under a Prime Minister interested in protecting her job and clinging to power, at whatever cost, so that she can remain in the Lodge.
This is all to the cost of the Australian people—to the cost of the confidence of the Australian people—who have taken such a battering under this Prime Minister. She is a Prime Minister who declares war day after day on another section of the Australian public. Whether it is single mothers, overseas skilled workers or media critics, she pits people one against the other in a divided and ugly attempt at governing this country. It is divisive, ugly politics.
The fact is that irrespective of who wins this ballot for the ALP leadership at 4.30 today, there will be no stability with this government. Clearly, the ALP is riven down the middle. There are irreconcilable splits between factions and between camps. It is deep; it is personal; it is vicious—and it will not go away.
The current Prime Minister leads a chaotic government and she is the central cause. She is central to the dysfunction of this government. That she does not have—nor does she deserve—the confidence of her own political party, let alone the confidence of the Australian people, which is quite evidence from the bad calls she has made day after day while leading this party. Her flip-flopping on the key issue of border security tells us how bad her political judgement is. The media bills that we have seen introduced into this House, the broken promises on the carbon tax and the broken promise on the budget surplus tell us that she has no political confidence and no competence. The live cattle export fiasco tells us she has no judgement.
So, if this Prime Minister is re-elected by her party there will be a continuing shambles. It will continue to be a government that is a joke internationally—a government that is now a parody of itself. The member for Griffith represents the same shambles, so this government cannot function. It was the member for Griffith who started the dysfunction in this House. He is responsible for the original decision that led to the border security shambles carried on by this Prime Minister. So whomever the members of the caucus choose, the instability and dysfunction will continue.
We have all read what the members say about each other in private. We have all read what they say about each other in public. The fact is that the Australian people deserve better than this. We need a change— (Time expired)
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:25): What we have seen across the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the same negative dummy-spit that they have been engaged in since the 2010 election. The Leader of the Opposition just had an opportunity to indicate to the Australian people, if he chose to take it, what his vision is for the country, and what his leadership attributes are. Instead, because he is unable to do that, he filled the space with the only thing he knows, and that is negativity, bitterness and the politics of personal assault.
To the Leader of the Opposition and to the team he leads I say that their lack of vision and their inability in opposition to come up with any costed, credible policies for the nation condemns them to be where they should be, and that is on the opposition benches. Despite all of the invective; despite the Tea Party tactics; despite their call for a people's revolt; despite all of the negativity we have seen from the opposition; despite their, since the first day of this government after the 2010 election, seeking to put this parliament into chaos—despite all of that—this is a government that has got on with the job and has governed well. And we are continuing to govern well.
Let's look at the facts for the Australian people, as opposed to this insider ranting that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The facts are these. Our economy is growing. It has come through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, showing its resilience and still creating jobs. The only surprising thing the Leader of the Opposition said in his 10-minute contribution was that, at sometime overnight, he had worked out that there is such a thing as the global financial crisis—something he denied in this House yesterday. He denied in this House yesterday that the global financial crisis was continuing in any way.
We have always understood that our nation faced a huge challenge. The challenge continues, with instability in the global economy and the reshaping of our economy through the high Australian dollar. And day after day, piece after piece, we have met that challenge to create jobs for Australians—more than 900,000 of them—and we will continue to create jobs into the future. We have not simply been concerned about creating jobs—jobs with any benefits and conditions. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and his team we have always determined that the jobs needed to be ones that offered the benefits and dignity of work, where people got treated fairly in their workplace.
I am proud that this week we have extended more fairness to workers in childcare centres. Why shouldn't women, predominantly, who care for children—the most precious asset in our country—enjoy proper pay and proper benefits and dignity at work? Why can't the Leader of the Opposition be a big enough man to support that? We have, as a government, piece after piece made sure that there is fairness and dignity at work. We brought in the Fair Work Act—and we are proud of it. We brought about a better deal for shipping workers—and we are proud of it. We brought a better deal for truck drivers—and we are proud of it. We brought a better deal for textile, clothing and footwear workers—and we are proud it. We brought a better deal for the outworkers who do sewing in their own homes. We brought about a better deal for aged-care workers—and we are proud of it. We brought about a better deal for women who look after women in domestic violence refuges and the like—the great workers of our social and community sector. And we have extended those benefits to child care too. And we have more to do.
At the same time as we have ensured that there are jobs—decent jobs with fairness and dignity at work—we have worked to benefit families with all of the pressures that they face today. We have introduced new benefits that have been decried and campaigned against by this Leader of the Opposition. I am talking about benefits like a paid parental leave scheme for mums and dads; an historic pension increase; the Schoolkids Bonus, to help with the cost of getting the kids to school; an increase in the tax free threshold so that poorer workers—low-income workers, predominantly women, who are predominantly the second income earners in a home, who go back to work after they have had their children—can get to keep more of their pay packet. A million of them paying no tax at all.
As we have done that, we have worked out how else can we support families. We can bring more doctors, more nurses, more local control, more resources into hospitals than ever before, and we have. We can bring a national disability insurance scheme to end for ever the fear in Australian households that, if someone in that family got a disability, they would be thrown into a circumstance where they had no control and insufficient care and support. We, as a government, have extended these benefits because we believe in them. They are the Labor way. They are our way. We have delivered them in the difficult circumstance of this parliament.
This is a government that, against relentless negativity, has governed for the fortunes of all Australians and governed well. And, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition, we are not done yet. We have got more to do to bring fairness and opportunity into our country, more to do to make sure that our country is ready for the opportunities that will come with this century of growth and change in our region.
It is this government that has outlined the roadmap to that future—a future of prosperity where we are a nation. So long have we struggled with being isolated from the biggest markets in the world, now we are on the doorstep of what will be the biggest markets in the world. There are more middle-class consumers in one region than there has ever been before in human history—more consumers in one region than there has ever been before in human history. And here we are as a nation—strong, resilient, emerging from the global financial crisis well—positioned to make sure the benefits of those opportunities flow to all Australians.
It is the future of opportunity and prosperity that is not assured. There is nothing about our position in the world that guarantees for the future that we will be a high-wage, high-skill economy. If you make the wrong decisions, you will not get there. Which is why—methodically, carefully, day after day—we have made the right decisions to get our nation there. The right decision to roll out the infrastructure of the 21st century—the National Broadband Network—despite the opposition and negativity of those sitting on the opposition benches. We have invested more in traditional infrastructure—roads, rail, ports—than ever before. There are more students getting university degrees than ever before. And kids from poorer households are getting a chance, for the first time in our nation's history, to be the first in their family to get to university education in large numbers. This is something I was told as education minister could not be done: We have brought about more apprenticeships and more traineeships than ever before. We have held those numbers, even during this worst of economic downturns, because we understand that a ticket to a good future can often be that trade certificate that emerges from an apprenticeship. We are not done yet in bringing an opportunity. School funding reforms will ensure we do not have multiple classes of children in our country with some kids going very well indeed and some getting left behind. There is one opportunity for all Australian children and it is the opportunity to get a great education so that you can have a decent run-up to a great life.
We are not done yet in making sure, as we bring these benefits to Australians, that they flow throughout the economy. We will not close the doors on sharing the benefits of the mining boom and harnessing them for just a few. We will not treat Australians as if there are a few who are in the inner circle and the rest who are somehow in another class. We have always worked, and we will always work, to ensure that benefits are spread and opportunities are shared. That is our mission. That is our creed. That is what Labor governments do. That is what this Labor government has done. It is what it has done under my prime ministership, and it is what it will do under my prime ministership from this day forth.
We will ensure that our eyes remain focused on the opportunities for Australians and the benefits they need, and we will fight and fight and fight the Leader of the Opposition's campaign to take opportunity away from Australians, to visit cutbacks on their head, to make sure that they are hurt the same way they have been hurt by governments like the Newman government. We will fight and fight and fight that, and when the election is held in September, we will prevail in that election, because the choice will be so clear, and the right path for a stronger, smarter, fairer future will be so clear as well. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is not carried by an absolute majority of members as required under standing order 47.
Ms Gillard: I asked the Leader of the Opposition to take his best shot and we got that damp squib, so they obviously do not want question time.
The House divided. [14:39]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (14:42): I present report No. 78 of the Selection Committee relating to private members' business and referrals of bills to committees.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to private Members' business and the consideration of bills introduced 18 to 21 March 2013
1. The committee met in private session on 20 and 21 March 2013.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation:
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
There has not been the opportunity to properly scrutinise the changes proposed in the Bill or their potential impacts.
Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts:
Australia Council Bill 2013
Australia Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
To determine the impact of the provisions contained in the bill on the Australia Council and on Australian arts and cultural organisations.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Corporations Amendment (Simple Corporate Bonds and Other Measures) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
There should be an opportunity to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are in order through a committee process. This will allow for a public hearing by key stakeholders into the legislation and to ensure that some of the more controversial aspects of the Bill are workable in the eyes of industry such as the new definitional terms for 'financial adviser' and 'financial planner'.
Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
The bill deals with the regulation of financial markets and products. There should be an opportunity for a committee hearing and enquiry to ensure that market participants have actively been engaged through the legislative process, and that there are no unintended consequences in the drafting of this legislation.
Standing Committee on Economics:
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Further scrutiny and road-testing is required, particularly in relation to the following schedules:
Schedule 1—after the two key changes proposed here, whether the film tax offset provisions remain properly targeted and consistent with policy intent;
Schedule 5—whether the enforced consolidation of multiple member accounts with certain super funds will be done efficiently, effectively, and in the best interests of members, without unnecessary costs or unintended consequences;
Schedule 6—proposed reductions in superannuation co-contributions for low income earners, including the freezing of the thresholds at which these co-contributions will begin phasing out (and end phasing out), are politically controversial, and where we have come from regarding co-contributions need ventilating;
Schedule 7—consolidation of eight separate tax offsets for dependents into one new tax offset from 1 July 2012 is controversial and may have unintended consequences; and
Schedule 8—complex matters regarding Taxation of Financial Arrangements (TOFA) regime, and changes apply retrospectively
Key concerns here generally involve:
Whether legislative changes are hitting the mark in terms of policy intent and efficacy;
Potential unintended consequences;
Many complex subject matters exist here;
Some parts apply retrospectively and may not be entirely beneficial to taxpayers; and
Some parts are quite controversial (for other reasons).
Standing Committee on Education and Employment:
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
The bill makes changes to the Fair Work Act that will have an impact on each employee and employer in Australia. It is important that the Parliament be fully aware of this bill and identify any unintended consequences.
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the circumstances in which a protected disclosure may be made.
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the adequacy of coverage of antidiscrimination protection. Consideration of whether terminology is appropriate.
3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
Protecting Local Jobs (Regulating Enterprise Migration Agreements) Bill 2012 (Mr Bandt)
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013 (Mr Abbott)
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:44): I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:44): It is important that leave of absence be granted to members for the next seven weeks in order to give the government that is crumbling before our very eyes the opportunity, should the Prime Minister be replaced or even if the Prime Minister is not replaced, to start regrouping and focusing on what matters to Australians today: cost-of-living pressures, job security, the protection of our borders, economic management. What we have seen in the last four days, what we have seen for the last 2½ years, is not the kind of government that this country deserves. We are a great people let down by a very bad government, and what we are seeing today is the final Brutus act of Simon Crean, the former minister for regional Australia, driving his knife into the back of the Prime Minister and supporting Kevin Rudd—the final act in what has been a tragicomic play. Unfortunately, the losers from this play have been the Australian people.
The opposition stands ready to form a government whenever an election is called. The Leader of the Opposition's team has worked for the last 2½ years to prepare this side of the House for government. At least one side of the House has been focusing on the kind of important policy work that will be necessary to get the country moving again should the government change whenever an election is held. On the other side of the House we have seen a revolving door of leaders. We have had more prime ministers in the last 2½ or three years than in the first 10 years of Federation, when our country first began.
It is not good enough—it is not good enough for the Australian parliament, for the 13th largest economy in the world—to be led by a government which is internally focused, inwardly focused. In order for leave of absence to mean anything, whoever emerges from the leadership battle this afternoon at half past four must refocus the government on what matters to the Australian people. How will the member for Griffith overcome the statement he made to the Labor Party caucus after he was defeated in February last year, when he said that he pledged his undying loyalty to Julia Gillard as leader of the Labor Party? He not only said that he would never challenge the Prime Minister of Australia in this term; he also said that if anybody else did, they would have to go through him first—that he would be the first person standing in line to defend the Prime Minister.
Today, the member for Hotham has called on the member for Griffith to stand for the leadership—but the member for Griffith is crippled from the beginning. If he challenges the Prime Minister this afternoon, he is breaking his first promise to the Labor caucus and to the Australian people—that not only would he not challenge Julia Gillard as Prime Minister but also he would be standing first in line to defend the Prime Minister. That is why leave of absence should be granted to members of the Australian parliament assembled today—so that the government can get its act together; so that finally it can start putting job security first, it can start putting cost of living first, as well as protecting our borders and good economic management. If it becomes apparent that those opposite cannot do that, they should call the election the Australian people so desperately desire so they can put adults in charge of the executive wing rather than those squabbling children; those knife-fighting, cage-fighting people who pass for the modern day Labor Party.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:48): We have just witnessed a vote where the majority of the members present in the chamber supported suspension of the standing and sessional orders to bring on a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister.
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will address the motion before the chair.
Mr HOCKEY: It all comes back to leave of absence. These people need leave of absence not for seven weeks but for 10 years—and the rest. No government has been more incompetent, no government has been more dishevelled, no government has failed more at the basic delivery of policy, than the Gillard Labor government.
Now we have the shenanigans of the parliamentary Labor Party outside this place trying to work out who is going to be the Prime Minister of Australia. It is the Australian people who deserve the chance to determine who is the Prime Minister of Australia, not the parliamentary Labor Party; not the faceless men. I understand today is the 50th anniversary of that famous event when the faceless men determined the future of the Labor Party. It was a different generation but the symbolism endures today.
As of right now the chief protagonists are out there campaigning. It is not just the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, who has himself taken leave of absence from his ministry—he has been sacked, I understand—but Richard Marles, a parliamentary secretary, was on TV just before question time saying he is going to support Kevin Rudd. He is urging the member for Griffith to run for leader of the Labor Party. It is open warfare in the Labor Party, and who gets lost in all of this? The people of Australia. They are the ones left behind, along with their concerns about costs of living, their concerns about raising their families and their concerns about law and order. They are the forgotten people—the 23 million of them.
I would urge everyone to support a motion that gives the entire Labor Party leave of absence for a decade or more because they are the ones who have forgotten everyday Australians. For forgetting the interests of everyday Australians and putting their own interests first, they do not deserve to govern. They do not deserve to occupy the Treasury bench.
Over the last few weeks it has become patently clear that, whilst the government has focused on its own interests, on its own jobs, the budget has completely collapsed—not just for this year; there are now reports that the budget over the next five years is in complete disarray, with ongoing deficits. What we have witnessed in the last few months alone is a government that has been completely besotted by its own self-interest and a government that has forgotten the national interest. It has forgotten the interests of Australians; it has forgotten how to govern—not that, arguably, it ever knew. The member for Griffith wants to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Lodge. He is a reluctant participant in this entire play. The member for Griffith: 'Please, beg me to be Prime Minister; beg me to lead your party for I am the chosen one—only I, Kevin Rudd, can lead you out of the dark valley of your destiny and only I can take you to the promised land, the promised land where I happen to be.' He is the saviour.
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney might relate this to the motion before the chair.
Mr HOCKEY: Of course it is only through leave of absence that the member for Griffith has come to understand that he is truly the chosen one. It is only through leave of absence, spending an extended period of over three years on the back bench—oh sorry, he was travelling the world. I am doing him an injustice because he was the world's best foreign minister for the period that he was there just as he was the world's best Prime Minister for the period he was there. He is the world's best member for Griffith and now he is the world's best would-be Prime Minister. If only his colleagues would overwhelmingly get on their knees and beg him to take over the leadership of the Labor Party. Of course, he will not accept the simple majority that most people would take. He wants every one of the members of the caucus to vote for him because the chosen one must have unanimous and complete support. The chosen one may choose not to be the chosen one but that is the right of the chosen one: to choose not to be chosen.
Mr Robert: That is very Monty Python-esque.
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Fadden and the member for North Sydney that we are getting to the stage of Monty Python-esque. I would refer some dignity to the parliament and refer to the motion before the chair.
Mr HOCKEY: I would love dignity in the parliament, Madam Speaker, as my colleagues would. The only way we are going to get dignity in this parliament is to have a general election. The only way we are going to get dignity in this parliament is to give permanent leave of absence to the Labor Party. And the only way we are going to get dignity in this parliament is to have a government for the people, by the people, with the people on behalf of the people.
The Labor Party is a rabble. They need a permanent leave of absence and only the Australian people can deliver that.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:54): Clearly the government need a leave of absence. They need more than the leave of absence as proposed in this motion. They need, as the shadow Treasurer just said, a permanent leave of absence. Indeed, it ought not to be leave. It ought to be imposed upon them by the Australian people for having failed in government, for having failed to deliver on the commitments to the Australian people and for having let this nation down.
This is a government that has failed to meet its commitments to the Australian people. The current Prime Minister acceded to office with three major policy announcements. She said the three major policy failures of the Rudd era, when she knifed him in 2010, were the mining tax, asylum seekers and climate change. All three are now bigger problems than when she came to office. She has made them worse. We have got a carbon tax that she promised we would never have.
If today is to be her last day then enshrined on the tomb of her prime ministership will be the words: there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. I think the government needs a leave of absence to go out and prepare the tombstone. So the first of the three major problems that she had to fix up she made worse by giving us the world's biggest carbon tax, one that is costing thousands of Australian jobs. It is making us uncompetitive as a nation. It is encouraging people to invest in other parts of the world while doing absolutely nothing to give us a better environment.
The second big problem we were going to have fixed was the mining tax. Well she has fixed it good and proper. It was supposed to raise $2 billion; it has raised net $40 million. This was the tax that was going to share the boom. Firstly, it has reduced the size of the boom. Secondly, this $40 million will go nowhere towards giving us a National Disability Insurance Scheme or Gonski reforms or any of the other things that she spoke about. I think that Labor needs time and leave of absence to help get their policies right and to make sure that they address the issues they promised. Thirdly, what about fixing the asylum seeker problem? There have been over 30,000 more asylum seekers and absolutely no end in sight to this human traffic. The reality is this government has failed dismally.
As was earlier mentioned, the Labor Party has no plan for the future. We do have a plan for the future. We do have a way forward. This is Labor's plan: Mr Crean and the faceless men. This is our plan: carefully prepared principles of policy that will make a real difference to ordinary Australians. We have a way of bringing our country forward. This government is lost and needs time. It certainly needs time on leave of absence to find its way once again.
I notice they are in quite a contest at the present time and need a leave of absence to sort out who is going to be leader. Who is going to be the head of this new government? I thought the qualifications for each of the candidates have been well and truly espoused by the Labor Party itself. I am interested that the member for Hotham is reputedly the man who will be Deputy Prime Minister under the new administration with somebody else as Prime Minister. The one he wants to be Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd. It was not very long ago, 31 January 2012, that Mr Crean had this to say about Kevin Rudd:
He can’t be prime minister again. He’s got to accept that.
Only a year ago, he could not be Prime Minister—now he is asking his colleagues to vote for him and make him the next leader of our country. This is Labor's way of doing things: they have been doing it this way for 50 years—it is no different today. This is a party that need time in the wilderness, that need leave of absence so they can get their organisational affairs in practice. If you can't govern yourself, you can't govern the country—and this government have certainly shown that they cannot do that.
There is a better way forward. There is a way that we can have a leave of absence that makes a difference to the Australian people: let's have an election! Let the people decide how long this leave of absence should be—should it be just for seven weeks, should it be for seven years or should it be for seven decades. The longer the better, as far as I am concerned. This is a government that has lost its way, has no idea where it should head and is in fact testing the patience of Australian people beyond belief.
Look around and try and find an Australian who thinks they are better off under this government. Look around and try and find an Australian who thinks this government has done anything to ease their cost of living or to make their lifestyle better. The answer is that they are simply not there.
Let us take the leave of absence period to wander around Australia and search out people who feel that this government has done a good job. It will take longer than seven weeks; it will take a lifetime. This is a government that has lost its way, has lost its soul, has lost its direction, has lost its leadership and does not know where to tread. This is a motion that perhaps even ought to be amended, to give this parliament a permanent leave of absence until there is a better government that can do a better job.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:01): I support this motion for a leave of absence for members—particularly those on the government side, to go and speak to their communities and reflect on the record of failure that this government has imposed upon the people of Australia. It is necessary for them to do that.
This afternoon the Labor caucus will go into the panic room, a room that this government have been operating from for some years, and they will make a decision: are they going to pick the Prime Minister who started the boats or are they going to pick the Prime Minister who cannot stop the boats? That is the choice they have, because whoever is running the business of the Labor Party at the end of today, the people-smugglers will still be in business—because the Labor Party will be in government. That has been the experience of the people-smugglers under this government from day one.
It was Prime Minister Rudd who started the boats. It was Prime Minister Rudd who did what the member for Kingsford Smith told radio host Steve Price all those years ago, on that lounge before the 2007 election: 'You know what? We're going to change it all.' And he was right: this government did change it all. They removed every single brick in the wall of border protection that John Howard built—brick after brick after brick, Prime Minister Rudd removed, followed by Prime Minister Gillard. And what have we seen as a result of that? Cost, chaos and tragedy.
That is why I support this motion for leave of absence: because members on that side of the House should go away and reflect on the consequences of the decisions that Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard together imposed upon this country and on our borders. It has been said today that if you can't govern yourself, you can't govern the country. Well, if you can't govern your borders, you can't govern the country either—and that is what this government is guilty of.
This government have changed it all. It was Prime Minister Rudd who abolished the Pacific Solution. It was Prime Minister Rudd who said, before the 2007 election, he was going to turn boats back. He abolished that policy when he came into government. It was Prime Minister Rudd who got rid of temporary protection visas, and since that happened there have been 34,373 people illegally turn up on 588 boats. But Prime Minister Gillard exceeded the performance of Prime Minister Rudd in this regard because, since she became Prime Minister, there have been 449 boats and 27,821 people. And during that time detention centres have burnt down, people have broken out and people have been just let out under this government and their failures on border protection, which those members opposite can go and reflect on when they are given this leave of absence.
All of these measures—the abolition of the quarantine on appeal to the courts of appeal that was in place under the Howard government; the excision policies, totally abolished by this government; the abolition of mandatory detention, effectively implemented by this government, not because they believed it was the wrong policy, not because they were struck by some noble sense of compassion, but because the detention centres were full and some of them had burnt down so the government decided to just let people out, without any guidelines or protocols or any form of structure to govern how people would live in the community.
I find it amazing that this week the Prime Minister thought it was a good idea that she control the behaviour of the media but she does not think it is a good thing to have protocols in place to control the behaviour of those who would otherwise be in detention.
This is what this government have been doing for 5½ years. It has been a seamless transition from one failed Prime Minister to another failed Prime Minister. And now this government will get together this afternoon will get together in the panic room and decide which failure they will pick. One or the other, the result will be the same: just more failure.
It was this Prime Minister who promised the East Timor solution, which turned into the East Timor farce. It was this Prime Minister who had the Malaysian disaster, in terms of not only how the policy but then how they sought to implement it. It was this Prime Minister, after being encouraged by those on this side of the House for years, was dragged kicking and screaming to restore the Pacific Solution—and, since they have, they have just shown their usual incompetence in how they implement and administer any policy.
Whatever happens today, as members go on their leave, one way or the other, as this motion supports, they will reflect on a period of time in government, as they move forward to a budget and an election, knowing one thing—that is, they cannot campaign on their record. What an indictment. What a contrast to the opportunity the people of Western Australia recently had, where they could re-elect a government on its record and do so in the way that they did, with some enthusiasm, and do so in a way that they could look at a Premier in Western Australia and say, 'You've done a great job—we're going to give you four more years.' This government cannot go to the people on that basis. There are two failed prime ministers—I suspect there could be a third one over there, but they are not putting their hand up, so they will have to return to the first failed one. That is the choice they have in the panic room this afternoon.
There is a better way forward, as the Leader of the National Party said. There is a much better way forward. That involves, on our borders, restoring the measures that worked. It is not rocket science. It just takes resolve. It takes a commitment. It takes policies that you believe in. If you believe in strong border protection then you put in strong border protection policies. If you do not, you resist it, you make excuses for it and then you only implement them if you are dragged kicking and screaming. And that is what the government have done. They do not think they have a problem on the borders; they think they have a political problem, and that is how they have dealt with this issue for the many years that they have been in government. And the Australian people know it.
The Australian people know that, whoever is running this sorry show on the government side of the House by the end of the day, it will still be a sorry show. It will still be an absolute carnival and a circus. The Australian people have grown very tired of watching this circus and they are looking for stable, responsible government—something those on that side of the House have demonstrated, by their own hand, on our borders that they are incapable of delivering.
A coalition government, if elected, will decide, on behalf of the Australian people, who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. That will be our policy; that will be our resolve. You will never get that from those on that side of the House regardless of who is leading the Labor Party at the end of today.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (15:09): I support the motion. Let me start by saying that the reason this parliament needs to break and to visit the Australian people and to work with them is that, after today, we will face the results of a choice between the Prime Minister who gave us the pink batts program or the Prime Minister who gave us the carbon tax program. Let us look at what these two choices have given us and understand why we have to go to the Australian people, why we need to face the Australian people. And we should be facing them with an election immediately, whoever is finally given the poison chalice of the Labor leadership and the revolving door at 4.30 pm today.
There are 20 great failures which we have identified, which need to be discussed with the Australian people, in the climate and environment portfolio alone. The amazing thing is that, when you look at that list of 20 failures from this current government, 10 are from the member for Griffith and 10 are from the member for Lalor. They are equally bad. It does not matter who gets the conch, it does not matter who gets the nod, they are two failed prime ministers with a failed history in their own areas.
Let me run through 20 failures. Firstly, the carbon tax broken promise—that is a Gillard breach of faith. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said before the last election. The day before the last election she said, 'I rule out a carbon tax.' Six days before the last election she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—one of the more infamous statements in Australian parliamentary history. The carbon tax under the government she leads, which was voted for by every member of the current government, is a $36 billion tax. It is an electricity tax which was responsible for Australian families facing a 10 per cent average increase in electricity costs, after the GST is included, and for Australian manufacturers facing a 14½ per cent average increase in electricity costs. It was a tax created through a breach of faith and brought in in a way which damages the livelihoods of Australian families, Australian pensioners, Australian farmers, Australian small business owners and Australian manufacturers. That is the act of breach. That is the faith which has been broken and that is why, amongst many other reasons, we need this break from the parliament to take this matter to the Australian people.
I would also say that the grand irony of this broken promise is that Australia’s emissions go up, not down. Under the government’s own modelling, our emissions go up from 560 million tonnes to 637 million tonnes. What does that mean? It means it is all of the pain for no gain—not under our modelling, not as a consequence of our say so, but on the basis of the government’s own Treasury modelling. It was a broken promise, it causes pain and it does not even do its job. That is the first of the items.
The second of course is the home insulation program. It was linked to four tragedies. It was responsible for 224 house fires. It has seen 70,000 repairs. It cost more than $2.1 billion, of which more than half a billion dollars was to fix the roofs. That was the program that was delivered in defiance of 21 warnings by the now bidding-to-be-Prime Minister, the member for Griffith. When he was Prime Minister, there were 21 warnings—whether they were from the electrical and communications association, from the union itself, from state governments, from authorities—and I seek to table those 21 warnings to the government.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted to table the documents?
Mr Jenkins: No.
The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr HUNT: Oh, Harry! That was Mr Rudd’s contribution.
The Green Loans program was a Rudd government program, and we know that the Green Loans program wasted $100 million and retrofitted just over 1,000 houses. The Citizens Assembly program was scrapped before commencement. That was from the current Prime Minister and not the previous one. The Solar Homes and Communities plan had a $500 million cost overrun—the member for Griffith. Then there was the Solar Flagships Program, for which, after some years, there is not a cracker, not a watt of energy, not a thing built. That was a grand member for Griffith announcement. All promise, no delivery. Cash for Clunkers. We know who that was. That was the current Prime Minister. The Green Car Innovation Fund. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Low Emissions Plan for Renters. That collapsed. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Solar Hot Water Rebate. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Clean Technology Grants, which were stopped and started and stopped and have now been started again, after the MYEFO came out. That is the current Prime Minister. The Connecting Renewables Initiative, which was folded. That is the current Prime Minister. The Renewable Energy Future Fund. Squandered. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which delivered more in lavish dinners and conferences than progress on carbon capture. That was a Rudd initiative. The Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships Program. That has stalled. That was the previous Prime Minister. The Green Buildings for Tax Breaks Program, which was scrapped before commencement. That was the current Prime Minister. Phantom credits, which was scrapped two and a half years early, was the current Prime Minister's. Carbon tax advertising: $70 million wasted and a new program started this week—the current Prime Minister. The Green Start Program, which was scrapped before commencement. That was the current Prime Minister. And the Contracts for Closure Program, which was scrapped before commencement.
Twenty programs, 20 failures—10 failures for the previous Prime Minister and 10 failures for the current Prime Minister. Neither can govern and neither deserves to govern. The Australian people deserve an election. That is why we need to support this motion.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (15:16): Given that I have been given plenty of advice, as one of the few members of the government who has been sitting here through this, I thought I might share with those opposite what I will be doing during the break. We just need to get a bit of balance. What I would like to say is that in a perverse way some of the comments have been very helpful for current actions that will take place at 4.30 in this place.
I will be talking about the job creation of this government. I will be asking people to consider whether they have actually heard anything from the opposition that would give them any confidence that this would continue. I will be reminding the people of my electorate that we have a strong economy, no matter what those opposite say. We have an economy that is the envy of the world. It was very instructive that in a major debate like we saw today the Leader of the Opposition would actually get around to stating that he understood the pressures of global and international circumstances that were on the Australian economy at the moment. Because his actions until today have been as if nothing really happened: the global financial crisis turning into a global economic crisis did not happen; and the sort of things that we confront as an economy are not happening.
But when I am out enjoying my leave of absence from this place, and taking my duties as a local member seriously, I will be asking the people of Scullin to think about interest rates and the way they have been contained under this government, despite those opposite who ran around like Henny Penny, saying the sky will fall in and that interest rates will go up. Let us have a look at the record. Let us consider that on an average mortgage there is a saving of something like $5,000 a year compared with the interest rates paid when those opposite were last in power. During the break I will remind them of the tax cuts that have been delivered by this government. I will remind them of the help for families and the Schoolkids Bonus—1.3 million families and $410 a year for a primary school child and $820 a year for a high school child. I will remind those in my electorate who are part of the 230,000 families Australia wide who are benefiting from up to 18 weeks leave under Labor's paid parental leave scheme. I will be reminding them to contrast that with the policy the opposition will go to the election with, which is that this should be a different scheme actually funded by a new tax.
I will be reminding the pensioners in Scullin of the increases that have been achieved during these difficult economic times. I will be reminding them of those who receive a $210 supplementary allowance for singles and $350 for couples to help them with essential living costs, because when this government instituted its price on carbon it understood that the effect on people would be dependent upon their means, and that they needed assistance.
Contrast that to when the imposition of the GST occurred. I remind honourable members, and I will be reminding my constituents during the break, that in the case of the GST those opposite did not go down the road that had been exemplified by the New Zealand Labour government when they instituted a GST VAT tax. They instituted and made sure that the compensation package was real and continuing.
I will go to the people in South Morang, who are already users of the NBN. I will talk to the likes of the person who has actually moved from Balwyn North to South Morang on the basis that he would be hooked up to the network of the NBN and he could then create a successful at-home business, because those are the things that an NBN can create. On that, I will use the break to remind people that sometimes vision and the national interest go beyond the business case, because, if we look at the way this country and other Western democracies have developed, if everything had been decided on a strict business-case basis without factoring in the public good, a lot of things that are important would not have happened.
I will proudly go to those improvements in the health services that have occurred under the governments led firstly by Kevin Rudd and now by Julia Gillard. We will open the South Morang GP Super Clinic. As a person who represents a safe Labor seat, I simply say to people that this government has ensured that when it has put out things that are provided under our programs they have been on the basis of need. I get a little disturbed when the suggestion is made—perhaps because the opposition knows that that was what motivated them—that these things are to do with pork-barrelling.
And let us not underestimate the difficulties of the federation. I would invite honourable members opposite to use the break to do that—to think of the way in which they can have influence on their colleagues in state and territory governments that are governed by coalition parties, and to really think about how difficult it is for a Commonwealth government under our Constitution and our federation to ensure that, when we have a national program, it is instituted and put in place.
I will proudly talk about the way in which we have looked at neglected sectors of the community, such as those who need mental health services. I will say that we have committed the $2.2 billion for the mental health package so that we can deliver additional services and have a greater focus not only on the treatment but also, importantly, on prevention and early intervention.
I will also ensure that people absolutely understand what an historic step it has been to get the NDIS legislation through the parliament—to have a concept such as disability care that people can look at. Regrettably, in retrospect, I did not enter the debate on the NDIS legislation. But if I had I would have said, and I will use the time that we have as leave of absence to remind people, that, yes, it is only a first step—and that was about the only argument I heard from those opposite that I could have some agreement with—but it is an important first step.
May I also use this debate to remind people—because I do remind people, when I speak to them about these important steps as I will be during the leave of absence—that this was a long time coming. On this occasion I want to pay absolute tribute to the former leader of the parliamentary Labor Party Kim Beazley, because it was back during the dark days of opposition, when it was a hard slog—and I think that those opposite just want to assume that it is not a hard slog—that Kim Beazley decided, after listening to those who had come forward on behalf of the disabled of Australia, and said that it was time that we redressed and tackled the difficulties that they were confronted with. Kim Beazley appointed a shadow minister for disabilities, and so we had a person of the ilk of Annette Ellis, who was that person, going around and talking to groups.
So often the glimmer of a positive policy takes a long time to become a shining light. The work that was done during the years of opposition led to the way in which, during the first period of government, under Minister Shorten, we saw that we could bring things that had been suggested by the Productivity Commission study to fruition. We saw in this parliament yesterday the legislation that will enable us to go forward, to build on this idea, and to ensure that we have the states and territories going forward with us on this so that it can come to fruition.
Whilst I talked about some of the criticism that came from the opposition during the debate on the NDIS legislation, I am pleased that they are committed to the idea of disability care and that they are committed to ensuring that they will be involved in continuing the work. I hope that during the break they are able to prevail upon their colleagues who find themselves in decision-making positions in coalition-led state and territory governments to react positively.
So I am happy to enter this debate. Perhaps it is because it is the last time I will need this type of leave of absence in the run-up before a budget session, but I welcome the debate. I welcome the debate because it shows that, no matter what happens around this place, the opposition continues to be in a negative vein because, for all the problems that they want to talk about here, I rarely hear solutions. And, based on their track record when in government on many of the things that confront us, not only do I not see a suggestion that they know the solutions; I am concerned that they do not have an understanding and they do not really know the questions that should be asked. I support the motion that was moved by the Leader of the House, and wish everybody a fruitful break.
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (15:29): I rise to support this motion because we are at a critical time in this parliament's life, at a critical time in our democracy, at a critical time for the Labor Party—one of the two major parties; an integral part of a diverse and thriving democracy. Yet it is sick; it is sick at its core. And you do not have to take my word for it. Let us just see what the Labor Party has said about itself.
They need this time during the break to reflect further on the deep, entrenched, structural problems and cultural problems within the Labor Party that have brought a once-great party to its knees. And it was a former senior powerbroker and minister in the New South Wales government, Mr Della Bosca, who referred to 'the detested cast of ruthless, robotic machine men' who run Labor's campaigns. That was back in 2010. What has happened to those ruthless, robotic machine men? They still run the numbers. Nothing seems to have changed much from 50 years ago, when the faceless men decided what the Labor Party policies should be and who should be the leader.
John Faulkner, in his wisdom, said in early 2010 that 'all the political cunning in the world cannot substitute for courage, for leadership'. Let us not forget that having the courage of your convictions requires not only courage but conviction. And what we have seen from this Prime Minister and the current Labor Party is a lack of conviction. We have had their desperate, cynical attempt to try to appease the 24-hour media cycle and get a bit of a positive splash in the media. What have we seen in the term of this government? We have seen a desperate, minority government and a Prime Minister who is 'so tough, so feisty', but did not have the guts or the backbone to stand up to the Greens and say, 'No, I'm not going to break my promise not to introduce a carbon tax.' She caved in to the Greens, but all she had to do was throw them a few carrots; they were always going to support her. So a once great party has ended up being dictated to by a party on the fringes of political debate in this country. It is searching to find out what it believes in and what it stands for. As John Faulkner said on 9 June 2011 'the party has now become so reliant on focus groups that it listens more to those who do not belong to it than those who do. This makes membership a sacrifice of activism, not a part of it.' And the commentary goes on.
The reason I rise with such great vigour to support this motion is that it seems the Labor Party has not learnt from previous introspective investigation of what is so wrong with its structure, its membership base and its parliamentary representation. Only last year, Chris Bowen said: 'What is quite clear is that the government has considerable challenges. We have had for a considerable period of time now a low primary vote. I think the caucus needs to take a realistic look at what has caused that and I don't think the blame game of trying to blame one individual for all the government's challenges is a sustainable way forward.' What a great starting point!
Instead of focusing on the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the Labor Party should try to focus on why it has absolved itself of the fundamental responsibility of good policy development and good legislation to take this nation forward in order for us to fulfil our potential and grow our economy. Remember that it was that great powerbroker and former Senator Graham Richardson who said 'whatever it takes'. Unfortunately, that is what has defined the action and the direction of the current Labor Party—at any cost.
And this Prime Minister, more than anyone else, embodies that. At any cost, she will sacrifice good policy. At any cost, she will sacrifice the nation's economy. At any cost, she will protect her vanity, her so-called legacy—and what a joke that will end up being. At any cost it is this Prime Minister's vanity, and her legacy, above the good of the nation.
And those in the Labor Party who have gone along with it because it has been too hard to confront the problems in the Labor Party have absolved themselves of a fundamental responsibility. But they cannot wash their hands of the problems that are absolutely suffocating the Labor Party at the moment. They need a leave of absence to reflect on how they have got to the position that they are in. They need a lead of absence to start the restoration of the Labor Party. They need a leave of absence to start to rebuild the grassroots of their membership.
What we have seen is that the faceless men of 50 years ago and those who have continued that tradition are the ones who decide who comes into parliament. They are the ones who inflate the union membership records so that they can increase their power at Labor Party conferences and preselections. So it is dodgied from the word go. We have got fudged up figures on how many members belong to particular unions, so we have got fudged up figures on their voting numbers for preselections into this parliament. When you begin from such a morally corroded base, how can you go on to be a trustworthy representative and a democratic and open government? You cannot, because the foundation is so rotten, the foundation is so bad. That detested cast of ruthless, robotic machine men need to be shown the door, and this leave of absence is an important period in which the Labor Party can start what they have failed to do in the past.
And I recall some very embarrassing moments for a former leader of the Labor Party, Mr Crean. I remember when he was fighting to hold onto his own preselection. This is a man who is part of Labor Party royalty. There he was—father, former minister, long-serving member that he has been. He needed to take an interpreter to speak to preselectors in one of his previous preselections because of the ridiculous stacking that takes place. How can you build a political party, how can you build a frontbench that is going to make the right decisions for this nation, when all the members on that side fear making one decision or voting a particular way because the union bosses—those faceless men who decide whether they can be preselected to put their hand up and run as a Labor candidate in a particular seat—could have them disendorsed with one decision, in a closed room behind closed doors?
And they all blame each other. They say Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest in front of the broader Labor movement. They have said all sorts of things which I am sure would have to classify this period as the most unedifying, most embarrassing period in Australian political history—because at any cost, doing whatever it takes, this Prime Minister and those who have supported her have ignored any principles of good government and good policy and have descended to depths that I have never seen and that I did not think this parliament would ever see. We saw them try to confect a class war—in this country, a country that has been the beacon of freedom and opportunity for so many people around the world. But they need to try to find those hateful things that wedge us, not the things that bring us together. Having failed in their class war, they then confected a race war, straight out of the Prime Minister's office, last year on Australia Day—and they were exposed for it. How pitiful, how embarrassing, how utterly unacceptable, that the Prime Minister of this nation should have her office involved in a fraudulent attempt to claim that the Leader of the Opposition said something he did not, only to incite racial violence. And then of course we had the mother of all wars: the gender wars. What a hypocritical attempt that was; what a sad, pathetic attempt by the Prime Minister to deflect from the problems facing this nation, from the problems facing her leadership, from the problems that she should have been focused on. Again, it was another cynical attempt, at any cost, to save her own job, her own vanity, her own legacy.
And what has this done? This has caused great harm in the Australian economy. We see it in the area of manufacturing. Figures released today show that, in the last quarter, 30,800 manufacturing jobs were lost, bringing the total during the last five years of Labor to over 840,000. That means that, for the last five years, every 19 minutes we have lost a manufacturing job—when there are developed economies in the Western world, like Germany and America, that are experiencing a growth in manufacturing, who are steaming ahead with manufacturing innovation. This government is determined to slug a very important sector of the economy with additional costs during very challenging economic times, making them less competitive. We have seen closure after closure after closure. For many of them, the carbon tax has been the last straw. And what does this Prime Minister do? In her stubbornness, to try to whitewash reality, to try to rewrite history, she pretends—and her ministers pretend—that it has not happened. They pretend it is all to do with the dollar. Any economist knows that in order to remain competitive you need to keep your costs down. And when bad government decisions are made that deliberately slug your business with more costs, like higher electricity costs—and manufacturing businesses invariably use more electricity than other businesses—then that is going to put them at a competitive disadvantage against the imports that do not have a carbon tax imposed upon them.
We saw only today—again—a report provided by Brickworks to the ASX that the first-half result incorporated an increase of $4.7 million in energy costs, including the carbon tax. Why does this have to be so? It is because the Prime Minister, in her poor judgement—a creature of inward-looking factionalism—decided to betray the Australian people after her promise not to introduce a carbon tax, to give in to the Greens and give them the carbon tax that they had asked for.
We need a longer leave of absence, because this is a sick parliament with a very, very sick government at the helm that is doing this great nation a disservice. We have had deception after deception after deception, a mile of broken promises. We have had them break $1.4 billion worth of promises to the auto sector, we have had them break the carbon tax promise. On 300 separate occasions we have had them pledge a surplus, only to have that promise broken. We have had the betrayal of Andrew Wilkie, and the betrayal of each other—even amongst the Labor Party family. We have had the unedifying episode of the Craig Thomson affair, and the Peter Slipper affair. We have had the Prime Minister betray the Speaker she never really wanted. We have had so many betrayals, so much disappointment, so much embarrassment, so much damage to one of the greatest democracies that this world has ever seen. (Time expired)
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (15:44): I rise to support the leave of absence motion in the hope that, in the period reflected in this leave of absence, the government realise there are people out in our community struggling under their policies. The small-business community, whom I represent, feel that the government abandoned them long ago and that they vacated their interests and any effort to understand the pressures the small-business community are facing. The government granted themselves a leave of absence long ago to show no interest whatsoever in the small-business community of Australia.
People watch this parliament and I am sure they must think it is some kind of political equivalent of Midsomer Murders. There is a death every episode, whether it is the political death of a leader, death of allegiances, death of promises, death of integrity, death of undertaking, death of policy, death of good speakers as an act of convenience, death of parliamentary process when it is convenient for the government or death of agreements with Independents when they do not matter anymore. We just wonder what is going to happen next.
In recent days, I met His Excellency the ambassador—I will not say which one—from a nation that invests heavily in our country, who was lamenting the mood in his capital about how investors in Australia with significant contributions to economic opportunity and employment are left shaking their heads. They are just wondering what is going to happen next. They are wondering whether there are any adults in charge. They wonder whether government can manage to lift its head above the huddles of people working out who is going to do over whom and who might run.
According to Twitter, right now there are at least 20 Labor MPs in Kevin Rudd's office just begging him to run. The rose petals are out and everyone who has ever said anything bad about Kevin Rudd is now thinking about voting for him after absolute character vilification 12 months ago. They are signing a blood oath that they will never say anything nasty about him again. We are inching towards 4.30, when we will learn whether Kevin Rudd is resurrected in yet another episode of Midsomer Murders.
I ask this parliament to think about what we can do well over the coming weeks. It is a respite for people from seeing this circus, this dysfunctional and divided parliament, overseen by a Prime Minister seemingly completely preoccupied with her own job and her own survival and with not a jot of interest in the success and survival of small-business people and the jobs that they depend upon and provide for this economy.
Let us have a quick look at what is going on. The recent National Australia Bank quarterly SME survey found that small-business confidence, conditions, profitability, cash flow and employment levels were all in negative territory. You then look at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry small-business survey, where business conditions continue to deteriorate, quarter after quarter. They are falling again and have been tracking in a downward trajectory for every quarter over the last three years. There was a survey conducted by Sensis in its business index with small- and medium-sized enterprises. It asked a fairly simple question: how many of you think the Gillard government policies are actually supporting what you do? The result was that only six per cent of Australian small businesses think government policies are supportive of them—and I think I have found who that six per cent are.
In my travels around the country, I get asked, 'Who is the small-business minister today?' because there have been four small-business ministers in the last 15 months. All of them have had impressive union careers and would not know a small business unless during a threatening exchange over a cold pie. This is the concern. Depending on how today goes, we could end up with the fifth small-business minister in 15 months. Is there any wonder that there seems to be no interest in or commitment to small business? The portfolio is passed around like some kind of plaything at a kids party or, worse still, is dangled like a pinata—bright and shiny; 'Look at that'—and then everybody hops into it with a baseball bat. It seems that this is a passing interest that only gets a look in when an election is in the air. All of a sudden Labor decides it has to be more middle of the road in its policies and it realises that the most committed middle-of-the-road community we generally have are the small-business men and women. They are so embedded in our nation and our communities and see, day to day, the real-life experiences of their customers, their staff and the communities they operate in. Labor will think, 'We might need to talk about small business again.'
Let me make a couple of predictions. The last time, 12 months ago, when Kevin Rudd had a crack at becoming the Prime Minister again, all of a sudden he was saying where the Gillard government had lost its way. Which group featured prominently? He said, 'We really haven't done enough for small business, have we?' The retort I heard was, 'You've done plenty to small business, none of it good and, thank you, we don't want any more of that.' My sense is, if there is a resurrection of Rudd in the next hour or so, you will hear this all over again. After the punishment that has been meted out to the small-business community and family enterprises across Australia, there will be this flurry of interest that we have not seen since 2007, when Kevin Rudd was out there recognising that, when Labor politicians talk about the economy and seem to think it is only employees working for employers, there are millions of Australians who are not in that relationship; they are self-employed. They are independent contractors. They are courageous men and women who mortgage their houses to take a chance and apply their entrepreneurship and enterprise, not only in the hope that they will get ahead themselves but hoping to provide opportunities for people right across the country.
My prediction is that talking about small business will become the new black for Labor. They will see these harsh statistics that show that people feel that Labor have no interest in small business. Sadly, the evidence is backing that up quite clearly. I also predict that in maybe June we will have some sort of spectacle of small-business interest. Will it be a small-business statement? Will it be a small-business focus day? It will be some totemic thing that the Labor Party hope will get them some cheap headlines and that small business will think, 'All is forgiven.'
Ms Marino: A people's convention?
Mr BILLSON: A small-business people's convention perhaps, because there was not one at Rooty Hill, was there? In that jaunt out to Western Sydney it was almost like the small-business person was kryptonite and Super Prime Minister could not go near them for fear of any injury or illness. I think the tacticians in the Prime Minister's office knew that it would be pretty hard finding a small-business person with much positive to say, so why risk that? That is my prediction. Whatever happens, you will see some festival of interest that will last about two newspaper cycles, then the show will move on as Labor tries to resurrect itself in the eyes of the electorate.
I talked about the harm. I do not think many people realise that since Labor was elected the number of people who derive their employment out of small business has declined by a quarter of a million. There are 243,000 fewer Australians employed in small business now than there was five years ago. Yet we hear that there is population growth. The world's greatest Treasurer tells us we have an economy that is booming along: 'Everything is peachy and humming along! We are at trend growth, or thereabouts, and isn't everything just great?' But in that narrative there is a complete disinterest in and ignorance of what is happening to the engine room of the economy which, under Labor, has had a cylinder or two taken out of it.
The number of people who are employed in small businesses has also declined by more than 10,000. The share that small business provides in terms of private sector workforce has contracted quite remarkably—from over 51 per cent, when Labor was elected, to 45.7 per cent. Yet there is no recognition of that within the government. In fact, the opposite has happened. I listened intently to see whether this consistent stream of research and advice, telling people how tough things are in the small-business sector, would register in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. I paid great interest to that document. I went from cover to cover to see whether there was any positive announcement about small business in that publication. And I found one!
Ms Marino: Did you?
Mr BILLSON: I did find one. It surprised me that I found one. I read it and then I realised why it was there. It was in a chapter that said China might slow down and that that might have problems for our economy. But good news: the Chinese government has taken action to support small business in China, to try and keep its economic growth going! So the Chinese have set the example about how crucial small business is.
But I read on, and there was nothing at all in that document about the challenges small businesses were facing. The only positive statement was about what the Chinese government was doing. But then I read on further and found that there was another $380 million being allocated to the Taxation Office to continue its jihad against small business—to try and get every last dollar—and even where the dollar is not justified, to go after small business with the weight, the power and the resources of the tax office. According to the Inspector-General of Taxation the enforcement program of the ATO that targeted small businesses was going to be extended and enhanced by $380 million, and that 5,800 small businesses simply paid default tax assessments because they could not afford to fight or correct them.
That is the kind of message we hear as we travel around. It is a message of failure. Small-business owners talk to me and say, 'Bruce, it'd be nice if they left us alone. It'd be great if they were our allies and our advocates but if that can't be managed at least let there be ambivalence that has no harm attached to it.' Instead, Australian small businesses see, in this Gillard-Rudd government and whatever follows, an adversary—someone who is not on their side. This is a crucial part of our community that does not know quite what the government is doing to help them. They are just wondering what is going to be done to them next.
So, in this leave-of-absence period that we are debating, and which the coalition is supporting, I hope government ministers, whomever they might be—including, possibly, small business minister possibly No. 5 in 15 months, whoever that might be—might spend some time with the small businesses in their communities and realise that the courage and the risk, the efforts and the application, that small-business people apply to create opportunities and wealth, is understood and recognised by the government.
Last time Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister he went on that pre-election charm offensive, but nothing much came of it. We had Grocery Choice that was supposed to help consumers, but it did not. FuelWatch was supposed to help with cost-of-living pressures, but it did not work. We had a petrol commissioner, who wore that shingle around his neck, but had no new tools or powers to do anything about it. We had failed environmental programs like the pink batts and solar hot-water programs. They were unilaterally stopped while small businesses around the country were left with stock and financial obligations that no-one in the cabinet seemed to understand. We had a promise of 'one in, one out' as an approach to regulation, yet we have seen more than 20,000 new or amended regulations introduced by this government over a period where 105 have been repealed. That is hardly one in, one out.
There was a commitment to implement BAS Easy, but that just drained away. There was a broken promise about providing unfair contract protections for small business. That disappeared as well. We then saw a promise not to introduce a carbon tax, yet here we have one. It is a tax that, at his heart and in its design, has no greater victim in mind than the small businesses of Australia. Small businesses got none of the carve-outs, none of the compensation, and none of the hush money that was thrown around. They were told to either suck it up or pass it on. Suck it up! It was another cost so that margins got squeezed. That will be okay! Won't that work for a long time!
Small businesses are already struggling in this difficult economic climate where customers are cost conscious. Small businesses have upward cost pressures and overseas competitors who do not have the burdens that the Australian owners have to contend with. 'Just suck it up,' is the advice of the government, 'or pass it on to the consumers.' Then, after providing the advice to pass it on to the consumers, the government sent out the ACCC as a carbon cop, with small businesses that were contending with the carbon tax as their primary target.
This is a dismal record. You would remember that small business was promised a company tax. I remember the member for Deakin shot out a newsletter—a number of others did too—to small businesses in his electorate saying that it had been delivered. It has not been delivered. It has not even made it to this parliament—yet another broken promise.
And the government talk about instant asset write-offs as if that is some tax cut when it is simply a rephasing of tax obligations. And small business is smart enough to know they are not getting much from that. Contrast that with our plan and real solutions. Do you know what the centrefold of this document is? It is our plan for small business. I think it is the best couple of pages in this document. It is our plan for real solutions for Australia, helping small businesses grow stronger—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): The member is aware that he is not allowed to use props.
Mr BILLSON: Sorry, I thought this was evidence. My apologies. I thought it was not a prop but evidence. I will put it down, because the evidence is clear. It is part of our practical, considered plan to give small businesses the support they need. There are many measures in there that I think are what small businesses are looking for. I hope that, over the six weeks, Labor members think about that. I do hope that the Australian public get the chance— (Time expired)
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (15:59): We are here to speak on a very important motion on a day that will be historic in its significance. It will be a day of shame for the Labor Party because this is a party that over the next seven weeks will have the ability to hang their head in shame when they go before the Australian public. It is a very sad occasion indeed for a party steeped in such history that they would find themselves in this position today. It is not just bad for the party but bad for the Australian public.
I am often accused of being old-fashioned in many ways, but I believe very strongly that the Australian government's first charge is to protect its people; to protect our borders; to make sure that we defend our citizens; to make sure that we provide for them and their families; to make sure that we have a bright future for generations to come. Yet, when I move not just around my electorate but around hospitals and surgeries and chemists around the country, when I talk to people in the streets and at airports, when I talk to those people who are doing it tough, they do not share the optimism that should be there for the Australian people in the 21st century. This government was elected five years ago to deliver basic provisions to the Australian people. They gave commitments, not just in the area of border protection, which they have been a complete failure on, but also in relation to the area that I have the most interest in in this parliament, and that is the issue of health.
The government's second charge after protecting its people is to make sure that they have a healthy environment in which to live, that is, that they have access to services, doctors, public hospitals,—particularly in cases of urgent emergent need for medical attention—that they can see a dentist, that they can receive medicines on a timely basis. Yet if we look at the last five years, and the last two years in particular, this government has nothing—nothing at all—that it can say to the Australian people in relation to health that it has delivered on. Is it any wonder that the government finds itself in this position and that we are contributing to this debate in relation to what not just the next couple of hours but the next seven weeks will provide for the government.
This government had the opportunity, it built up goodwill in 2007 and 2008, to do a lot for the Australian people in relation to the provision of health services in this country. Yet what have we seen? We have seen the same approach by Labor to health as we saw by state Labor, and that is a priority of bureaucrats over patients. A building of bureaucratic structures which has starved the government of the opportunity to provide health services to those most in need. Is it any wonder, when this government, over the course of the last 12 months, spends $1 billion on bureaucrats, that there is no money left for patients.
This government have failed on those first two basic fronts. That is why the Australian public is completely disillusioned with where the Labor Party is headed today, and people do not even know at this hour, just after four o'clock, with less than 30 minutes to go before a leadership ballot, whether or not Kevin Rudd is actually going to stick his hand up for this ballot. They are not saying to the Australian people that they want a leader who is going to lead this country forward. They are not able to say to the Australian public that they want Kevin Rudd because they think he is the best person for the future of this country. This government are saying to the Australian people that they want the member for Griffith not for those reasons which are in the best interests of our country, to protect our borders and to provide for the health of our nation. They are saying they despise this man and yet they want him because they think he can save a couple of their seats.
Is it any wonder that Australians of every political persuasion hang their head in shame at this government at this point in our history. Whether the Labor Party revert to Kevin Rudd, whether they go to Bill Shorten, whether Simon Crean comes in, whether Wayne Swan remains as Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer or whether they stick with the current Prime Minister, it matters not, because they cannot deliver on the basic outcomes that the Australian people require for themselves and for their families. In relation to these basic requirements, particularly in relation to health, not only have this government been able to create great big new bureaucratic structures, which is where they completely corrupted the public hospital network at a state level, they have been able to set in train a series of policies which have set us back in the health cause in this country. This government have wasted $650 million on a so-called GP superclinic program which put GP superclinics into marginal seats across the country, not in areas of need. What it did was it pitched capital of taxpayers—taxpayer provided funds—to set up these great big clinics in competition with existing clinics. So the doctors and nurses and proprietors who had set up these superclinics already, their own enterprise, had competition that was sponsored by the government on the diagonal clinic. What did it do? It did not result in more doctors coming to a particular area. It resulted in the cannibalising of the existing service, the doctors leaving the existing practice and going across to the new one. Why? Because, with $5 million gifted to them by the taxpayers of this country through this incompetent government, the new superclinic was able to offer lower overheads and therefore higher wages to the doctors from the clinic across the road. Did that provide any further services to the Australian people? No, it did not.
But the government did not stop there, and that is why they find themselves in this turmoil today and that is why we have built up to this position of crisis today. The government attacked private health insurance. There are 10½ million Australians with private health insurance, half the population have private health insurance in this country, and the fact is that if we do not provide support to those who are privately insured in this country we will collapse the public system. The system that was in place under John Howard, and that will be in place under Tony Abbott if we win the election, is to provide good balance between the public and private systems. We want to make sure that we can retain those people who are privately insured, because we do not want people to leave private health insurance. We do not want those who can afford private health insurance lining up and putting extra pressure into our already overburdened public hospitals. We do not want people who can afford to have private health insurance making it harder for pensioners and people of low income waiting months and in some cases years for hips or for knees.
If this coalition is elected at the next election I want us to be judged on the number of services and interventions that we can provide to the sick people of our country, because that is a basic charge of a government in the 21st century in a developed nation like ours. I do not want to be judged, as a health minister in this country, if the coalition wins the next election, on how many bureaucrats we employ in Canberra or in other structures around the country. I want us to be judged by the number of doctors and nurses that we can provide financial support to to deliver those health outcomes to the sickest in our country. That is what a responsible government should deliver for its people. This government continue to be distracted from those most basic services, and that is why they find themselves in this dilemma today.
It does not stop at their attack on general practice, it does not stop at their attack of 10½ million Australians who have private health insurance; it goes further. The government have ripped a billion dollars out of dental health care in this country. I believe the Australian public want to see a greater investment in dental health care. I believe strongly that the Australian public want to see the government deliver outcomes for those who are suffering dental pain, particularly children. The coalition will deliver such a plan to the Australian public. That is the commitment that we have provided. Again, that is in stark contrast to a government that has been distracted from the main game.
Not only will we address the issue in relation to providing more support for those who are privately insured and restore integrity to the dental system but we will also provide record funding to our public hospitals. The coalition, when we were last in government, when Tony Abbott was the health minister, increased funding to public hospitals. That is a fact that we are particularly proud of.
Over the course of the last six weeks, when this government have been distracted by their internal machinations, they announced a rip-out of $1.6 billion from public hospitals. It was bad enough that they announced that they were going to cut back money from public hospitals over the coming years, because they have wasted billions, but they announced that they were going to cut funding out of public hospitals in this financial year. Hospital administrators around the country who are managing hospitals and employing doctors and nurses do not wake up in the morning and say, 'We'll decide to do X number of hips'—or knees or backs, whatever elective surgery requirements they have for that day. It takes months of planning. They have to employ extra doctors, and commission extra staff, services and wards. All of that has to be provisioned for. Yet the government said to hospital administrators around the country, 'Here is your budget for this financial year,' and that is what those hospital administrators had budgeted for, so that they could provide for the people who were coming through emergency departments in need of urgent care. But, halfway through the financial year, in November—and bear in mind that services had already been delivered from July through to November—the government announced, with no prior warning, that they were going to cut back on funding in this financial year. In effect, it has a double impact: by cutting a million dollars out of a public hospital in a rural or remote community halfway through a financial year, you are effectively saying to that hospital, 'We need you to find $2 million in the second half of the year because you have already spent that proportion in the first half of the year.' Patients are the ones who suffer. That was unprecedented in this country, and it was done by a very bad government getting worse.
My honest belief is that, whether the government stick with Julia Gillard, switch to Kevin Rudd, get themselves into a position to go to Bill Shorten, or Simon Crean sticks his hand up in time, it will make no difference to the outcomes that this government are able to provide. If Kevin Rudd wins today, he will go out there with a speech similar to that which people have heard over the course of the last five or six years, but, believe me, we have watched this government in close proximity for the last five years. There are many decent people in the Labor Party, on the backbench in particular, but those people are as aggrieved and frustrated as we in the Liberal Party are, and as the general public is, that they are being let down by a bad government. You cannot thrust this country into record debt, fail to protect its borders and fail to provide basic health services and then say to the Australian people that you deserve to govern.
That is why I think this government needs to go directly to the Governor-General to deal with this matter and ask the Australian people who they believe is best able to govern this country over the years to come. If we do that we will restore integrity to our borders, we will deliver economic certainty for Australian small businesses, we will get confidence back into the Australian economy, and we will restore funding and balance to our public and private hospital and health systems in this country. We will do it for the people who elect us to do it, and that is what good government is about.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:12): I also rise to speak on this motion in relation to leave of absence. I must say, I am tempted to vote against this motion because it is quite obvious that the government needs more than seven weeks absence from this place to find its way again. Whoever emerges from the Labor Party caucus room at the other end of this building in about half an hour as the Leader of the Labor Party, what we are witnessing today, as we have witnessed over the past few weeks and months, is the death throes of this Labor government.
The Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that she was announcing an election date, 14 September, so that she could get on with governing rather than campaigning. A little more than a week or so later, she spent a whole week campaigning in Rooty Hill, and what we see today is a government which is neither governing nor campaigning; it is simply looking at its own entrails. In the meantime, what is happening to the Labor Party—as I suspect decent members of the Labor Party believe, like the member for Banks opposite—is that the brand of the Labor Party is being trashed. To the frontrunners for this position, the current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister: consider the choice that people like the member for Banks have to make—the choice between the current Prime Minister who is totally distrusted by a great majority of the Australian people, and the former Prime Minister who is so loathed by a great number of members sitting opposite that even now they are having trouble bringing themselves to actually vote for him to put him back into the leadership.
Simon Crean, who has pulled this spill on today, has said about the previous Prime Minister, that he 'can't be Prime Minister again, so the question for him is, he's got to accept that.' He said: 'People will not elect as leaders those they don't perceive as team players.' That is what Mr Crean said about Mr Rudd, the member for Griffith, and yet they are contemplating putting him back in that position again. As I said, it is a choice between someone who is loathed by those who have worked closely with him, so much so that they got rid of him as the Prime Minister, and somebody who is so unpopular, so distrusted by the Australian people. That is the choice members of the Labor Party have to make today.
In the meantime, the people of Australia are wanting action on things like electricity prices that have gone up by 89 per cent, water and sewerage up by 64 per cent, gas up by 60 per cent, education up by 20 per cent, medical and hospital services up by 38 per cent, rents up by almost 30 per cent, utilities up by 76 per cent and insurance up by 42 per cent. The reality is that ordinary Australians are suffering the impact of the rising cost of living. Families in Australia are concerned about the rising cost of living but, rather than governing this nation and doing something about the real issues that face Australians now and into the future, we have a party which is so riven by division, by factionalism, by hatred of each other, that whatever we get after this meeting in about 15 minutes time we are still going to have a trashed brand of the Labor Party, a Labor Party that does not deserve any longer to govern this country.
Australians are pretty fair with political parties—they usually give them a second go. Here we now have a party asking for a third or fourth go, in effect, with the revolving door of leadership. They are asking the Australian people to put them back once again—the man they got rid of might be back now, yet the people did not like him in the first place because his government was so dysfunctional. The Labor Party have to make a choice and, whatever choice they make, Australia will be the worse for it.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:17): I ask that members support this motion.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2013
Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:17): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Our land, our languages: Language learning in Indigenous communities—Status of Government response.
ASC Pty Ltd—Statement of corporate intent for 2012-15.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Adjournment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:18): Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, due to the unusual circumstances of today the opposition has offered to not proceed with the adjournment debate at half past four to allow the House to adjourn so the Labor Party can either choose a new leader or reaffirm their support of Prime Minister Gillard. It is a generous act by the opposition but we understand the terrible circumstances the government faces and we wish to facilitate an opportunity for them to vote on a new leader.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:19): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 14 May 2013 at 2 pm.
House adjourned at 16:19
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Zulfiqar, Mr Minhas
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (09:30): It was a shock this morning to find out that last night a very prominent constituent of mine, Minhas Zulfiqar, was the victim of a senseless crime in Karachi, where he was shot dead in front of his family. Mr Zulfiqar is a prominent member of our community because of his ownership of the Crowne Plaza Norwest hotel, a fantastic institution in our community. In fact, it would not be unfair to describe him as one of the pillars of the Mitchell community. Our community is reeling this morning on hearing of this shocking crime, and I want to extend our condolences to his immediate family and family here in Australia, as Mr Zulfiqar was a fantastic member of the community.
When you got to know him personally, he was a warm and peaceful person who was a standard-bearer for successful migration from Pakistan to Australia, founding a business and becoming an owner of some prominent hotels in Sydney, including the Crowne Plaza Norwest, which was the winner of the mid-sized accommodation hotel award in the last year. It was also an institution that he used to successfully fundraise for many charities and do much good for our community. Whether it was for the Inala Cherrybrook facility for the disabled community, flood relief or fundraisers for Pakistan, the Norwest Crowne Plaza hotel was always at the forefront of worthy fundraising and initiatives to do good for our community.
This is a shocking event, and I want to pay all of our condolences from the Mitchell community to his wife, Razia, his two brothers—one of whom, Freddie Zulfiqar, a prominent Sydney restaurateur, is here in Australia—his three sons and one grandchild. Of course, we reject the senseless nature of this crime and reject the violence that is involved in it as an interaction between human beings. Minhas was a very warm, generous man, devoted to the care of his family and of his community, and our heart goes out to all of the family in their hour of need.
In concluding, I really want to say that I could not have thought of a more prominent figure in our community who has done so much for so many charity groups. Personally, I was privileged to attend many of the fundraisers and charity events that Minhas ran, and his door was always open to any member of the community in need. So, in this shocking time, I want to simply say on behalf of all of the Mitchell community that we are very sad to learn of this tragic event and offer all of our prayers and thoughts for the family of this wonderful man.
Fraser Electorate: Volunteers
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (09:32): On 19 February I held a morning tea for volunteers in my electorate who have worked with various international development programs. They shared their experiences and stories of the rewards, frustrations and challenges of volunteering in a developing country.
Roger Butler worked with the National Narcotics Board in Indonesia and was involved with the health and drug therapeutic community division. An important aspect of the division was to support those undergoing drug rehabilitation programs, including many in and recently released from Indonesian gaols. He worked to reduce the prevalence of HIV and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with this population.
Tracie Ennis worked as a data manager with Women's Empowerment, an NGO based in Jakarta, in Indonesia.
Tom Tanhchareun was based in Hanoi, Vietnam. He worked with a United Nations agency in tackling human trafficking.
Lisa Brown worked with an organisation that supported children who survived by having to scavenge from the city dump in Phnom Penh, in Cambodia. She told the group stories about the extreme deprivation of those children and how, upon her return to Australia, no smell can any longer assail her nostrils.
Edward Boydell was based in Hanoi in Vietnam. He worked on empowering Vietnamese youth on environmental issues and climate change through an NGO called Live and Learn. The aim of Live and Learn is to help create a space for Vietnamese youth to be vocal in public debate. They support movements created by young people to apply for funding with various NGOs. Edward also helped organise a youth forum discussing environmental issues.
Although each of the volunteers expressed moments that they described as 'wanting to pull your hair out', they all recommended volunteering as a positive experience, making a difference to overseas communities and in their own lives. They spoke about how their experience had broadened their world view and helped to put their own nation into a global context. They felt that the strong commitment of volunteering overseas helped them to better evaluate the views and opinions of others and to develop strong negotiation and problem-solving skills.
Over the last 45 years the Australian government has supported more than 15,000 Australians as volunteers. People intending to volunteer can now go to a single access point through the AVID program—ausaid.gov.au/volunteer. The smiles and laughter around the table at my volunteering morning tea were testament to the positive experiences of volunteering and I would encourage any Australian of any age who is thinking about volunteering to seize the opportunity.
Canning Electorate: Haynes Post Office
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (09:35): I rise today to speak in support of a number of my constituents in the suburb of Haynes in their quest to have an Australia Post post office facility established in the local area. Last week, I was presented with a petition from one of my constituents and a local business owner, Mr Robert Ricupero, in support of establishing a new post office at the recently opened Haynes Shopping Centre. Haynes is a newly developed suburb within my electorate, and to provide for the residents in the area a new shopping centre has been constructed which includes a supermarket, a pharmacy and a newsagency. This shopping centre has provided much-needed amenities and services for the area, but residents feel that they are unable to complete all of their business without a post office at the shopping centre.
The nearest Australia Post outlet is located within the town centre of Armadale and is over 3.5 kilometres away from the Haynes Shopping Centre. While this does not sound like a huge distance, the Armadale town centre has experienced rapid growth and can be extremely busy and difficult to access. Not only can parking be very difficult to find in the town centre, but the high demand for the services that the post office offers means that long waits have become the norm. In addition, the City of Armadale, within the south-east corridor of the Perth metropolitan area, is estimated to have a population growth of 55,000 to 85,000 within the next ten years.
Housing developments continue to spring up in the Haynes and Hilbert area, and there is expected to be an additional 16,000 home sites added to the area by the time the development has been completed. With this exceptional growth, it will not be possible for the Armadale post office to continue to meet the demands of the growing area. As a majority of these housing developments are occurring in the Haynes and Hilbert area to the south-west of Armadale, it would be a logical decision for Australia Post to establish an outlet at the Haynes Shopping Centre to cater for this demand.
Mr Ricupero has contacted Australia Post on a number of occasions to raise his concerns, but Australia Post has been unwilling to consider this option. Australia Post does not believe that a post office would be viable at this shopping centre due to population within the area. However, one look at the housing developments and projected growth for the area would put these false claims to rest—in other words, it would be ahead of the game. This has led Mr Ricupero to circulate a petition within his own business and in the surrounding area to gather support for the establishment of an Australia Post outlet. The petition has been eagerly supported by residents in the local area and the petition has attracted over 600 signatures. I have recently written to Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in order to highlight this issue on behalf of Mr Ricupero and the local area, and I urge him to intervene in establishing this much-needed Australia Post outlet.
Holt Electorate: Community Awards
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:39): I am very pleased to report to this chamber about a visit and the honour I had last week in hosting 10 students from the city of Casey as part of the 2013 Australia Day study tour. Each year on Australia Day, the city of Casey presents Australia Day study tour awards to young people in year 11—young people who have been nominated by their school or employer for their demonstrated interest in and understanding of politics and community events and issues. The awards are designed to give the opportunity to explore the political and administrative systems of our nation as well as to visit the three levels of government—including the city of Casey, the Victorian state government and the federal parliament. This year's recipients included Sasha Bowler-Clements from Narre Warren South P-12 College, Scott Chantry from Gleneagles Secondary College, Carla D'Angelo from Beaconhills College, Sara Forte from Haileybury College, Shanatel Mauauri from Narre Warren South P-12 College, Habibullah Mohammadi from Cranbourne Secondary College, Liam Peel from Narre Warren South P-12 College, Shabab Safa from Cranbourne Secondary College, Sophie Ward from St Margaret's School and Aidan Wright from Beaconhills College.
It is incredibly refreshing when you get to engage in conversation with a group of young people who represent the future and the hope of your country. They were obviously quite impressed with what they saw here in federal parliament, although there were some things they did not like. I will raise one issue. Our young people are often accused of being disengaged from politics. I heard this again on Q&A the other night. Interestingly, they had Viv Benjamin on the show, but every time they tried to cross to her some of my colleagues talked over her.
We have to give young people reasons to be engaged. The division they see in this country at the present time is not a great example. Whilst those of us involved in the process understand what happens in politics and political theatre, we need to remember how young people—who want to be involved, who want something to believe in and who want a purpose and a higher goal—see our behaviour. In the conversation I had with these young people, they talked about youth suicide, mental health, drinking and many other issues. The collective wisdom in that room was quite extraordinary. I do get sick to death of hearing people, as I did on Q&A, saying that our young people are not engaged. There was more common sense in that room than on some parliamentary committees I have sat on.
Our young people are our hope; our young people are our future. We have to spend more time encouraging them into the political process and showing them what politics is really about. There is a lot that is good about the political process in this country. We need to emphasise that more. We need to reach over the divide to each other more often to demonstrate that to young people—because we need these young people active, engaged and involved.
National Apology for Forced Adoptions
WYATT ROY (Longman) (09:42): Today I rise to honour three of my constituents who have visited the parliament on this day of high emotion, a day bringing a long-overdue apology to the devastated Australian mothers of some 250,000 babies forcibly removed from them at birth and adopted out, an apology that of course extends to those now adult children and the masses of fathers, siblings, grandparents and other family members caught up in the trauma of what is now acknowledged as an outrageous chapter in our history.
Jan Kashin and Beth Shanks are two such mothers who have endured an ongoing nightmare through being forcibly separated from their newborns. Beth is accompanied today by her husband Ken. Jan's experience was cruel to the point of dehumanising. She describes being despatched by her father from Queensland to the Anglican Church-run Carramar home on Sydney's North Shore for expectant, unwed mothers. The atmosphere, she says, was:
… of a place where crimes were kept secret from the public, press and other observers.
The year was 1963. Jan was 21 years of age and an adult with a loving fiance. The couple were planning to be married. She wanted to keep her baby and informed Carramar staff of her wish. But it did not matter.
Painted in the best light, Carramar's role was to coerce residents to adopt out their babies to supposedly stable, childless families who could better support them. The reality for most of the women sent there was that they had no choice. Jan recalls of the facility how its overbearing staff and her isolation from family and friends contributed to her diminished sense of self. The weakening of her psychological state, she suggests, was a key plank in the model of incarceration, where authorities needed to make sure the young women 'went quietly'.
And then came her tumultuous delivery at Hornsby Hospital. Jan was heavily drugged and shackled to the labour ward bed with leather restraints. Four days after the birth, she was deceived into signing away the baby to another family. She never got to see her tiny son, born seven weeks premature.
Jan Kashin became an accomplished artist who, 10 years ago, began to explore and express her ordeal on acrylic. These works are for her and for all those other women, children and families who from the 1940s to the 1980s suffered a similar fate. She sees herself as a war artist. 'My art,' she says, 'is a metaphor for abandonment, incarceration and battle. Because it rings true for hundreds of other mothers, it has relevance, helping to unlock their trapped experiences.'
Jan, Beth, Ken and your families, I am so appreciative of your presence in our nation's capital today. The forced adoption era occurred under myriad federal and state governments, and my hope is that today's apology serves as an important step towards our community healing. I wish you better days ahead.
Parliamentary Zone: Parking
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (09:45): On 11 February this year, a petition was tabled in the House of Representatives from the CPSU about paid parking in the Parliamentary Triangle. I have the the cover sheet here. The petition drew the attention of the House to the ongoing lack of adequate parking and public transport options available to people who work in the Parliamentary Triangle. The CPSU petition went on to request greater consultation with the National Capital Authority on the implementation plan for parking and transport in the Parliamentary Triangle. Two thousand one hundred and thirty-two people signed the petition, which I accepted for tabling because I understand why the Public Sector Union wants a solution to the ongoing parking woes.
The main issue here is that the CPSU is calling on the National Capital Authority to consult with all stakeholders on what they see as a worsening situation. Parking in the Parliamentary Triangle has been a problem for many years now. These parking problems are not new but they have been made worse by the closure of around 400 parking spaces in the zone. For our cultural institutions such as Questacon, the National Library, the National Gallery, the High Court and Old Parliament House, parking problems are a major concern. There has been a marked decline in visitor numbers, and this is being put down to the shortage of parking spaces. When I talk with the management of Questacon and the other cultural institutions, I hear about visitors to Canberra being unable to find a park and being incredibly disappointed that they could not see our major cultural icons.
I understand the problems our tourist attractions are facing and the problems facing public sector workers too. While many tourists are finding it almost impossible to find a park, public servants are also being squeezed out by closures of some car parks and by those who park in the Parliamentary Triangle for free but do not work there. There is rightly some concern that the limited parking spaces are being used by others who then walk or bus to their jobs in the city or elsewhere. I am on the record as supporting paid parking, provided—and I emphasise 'provided'—there are proper services and amenities in place. Every other paid parking area in Canberra is located around shops and amenities. To ask Public Service workers to pay extra dollars every week and not provide them with shops and services is something I do not support. If we are to have paid parking in the Parliamentary Triangle then workers should have access to amenities and services and better public transport options. Workers who pay for parking in other centres in Canberra can do their shopping and dry-cleaning and walk to a chemist or a minimart—in other words, they have access to a wide range of services and conveniences. If we are going to have paid parking in the Parliamentary Triangle then public sector workers and others deserve to have the same services and transport options that other paid parking areas provide.
Dairy Industry
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (09:48): Regretfully I stand in the parliament to highlight the desperate plight of a group of Australians who live in our midst. These Australians currently work for between $4 and $7 an hour. They are subjected to Mafia-like commercial bullying. They are a group of Australians for whom the financial pressure is becoming so great that suicide is often spoken about openly now as a way out. I talk of no other group than our Australian dairy farmers.
In my area, our dairy farmers are doing it extremely tough as a result of the retail competition involved with $1-a-litre milk. As evidence of how tough the industry is doing it: in the year 2000 there were no fewer than 1,545 dairy farmers in my state, and today there are approximately 540. One thousand dairy production farms have gone, under our noses, and what have we done to try and sustain the industry? By the end of the year, another 40 will be gone. We cannot sit idly by and watch this industry chew the flesh off its own bones so that we are able to procure milk for $1. This is wrong. As Australians we are generous by nature and we cannot sit idly by and watch this industry self-implode.
I would like to acknowledge the work of Brian Tessman and Ross McGuiness from the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation. Their frustration is overwhelming. The CEO up there, Adrian Peake, does a great job. I will work with that industry to make sure that we strengthen the negotiation teams that go to the processors and negotiate a better deal for our farmers. There are strategies that we can put in place now to get a better deal and a better price at the farm gate. If we stay on the same trajectory that we are on now, with those numbers that I just gave you, it will not be too long before as a nation we will be subjected to drinking UHT milk. That is not a bad thing from a retailer's perspective, because if they are selling UHT there are no refrigeration costs and no rotation costs. In some countries in Europe—France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium—95 per cent of their milk consumption is UHT.
Please, Australians, wake up! Help me help my dairy industry. It is a cruel hoax and ruse that we are engaged in at the moment and it is destroying families and commercial enterprises, and it needs to stop today.
Men's Sheds
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:51): On Saturday I am heading down to Fleet Street, Parramatta, to the site of a school which was built originally for the women and girls who were locked up in the Parramatta Girls Home—but it is now being revitalised. Three of the classrooms will become the site of the new Parramatta District Mens Shed.
Men's sheds are quite a new phenomenon. They are actually considered to be an Australian creation after a men's health conference in Melbourne in the mid-nineties. A group of people in Lane Cove formed an association for 'shedless' men and in Lane Cove they opened what is now known as the first official men's shed. Parramatta, even before the opening of this new shed, has six men's sheds, including one in Granville, the Arrunga Community Men's Shed in Ermington, one in the Hills, the ChainBreakers Shed, and one in Northmead. The Northmead shed was opened by a group of men, including a good friend of mine Kerry Boyce. They opened Northmead and now it is completely full, and so they have moved a kilometre down south to open another one in Parramatta. The sheds really are quite a phenomenon. The first one opened in the mid-nineties, and now there are about 900 Australia-wide. They are opening at the rate of four a week.
I would like to acknowledge some of the people who work so hard at Northmead and who are now transferring their attention to Parramatta: Kerry Boyce, of course, whom I mentioned earlier; Ian McHugh, who was a consultant for the Northmead shed and is now working on this one; Doug Mackay; and Jim Lambert, who is a retired engineer. I know quite a few of those men because they are members of the Parramatta RSL Sub-Branch—you know the old saying of 'ask a busy person'. This is a great thing to do.
There is considerable research coming through about the health benefits that are occur when men get together in this way. The role of the shed in the backyard in Australian history is probably not well understood. In my family they are known as the 'man cave', by the way, not the 'shed'. I think 'man cave' is an appropriate name for them. Clearly they play an incredibly important role in the ability of men to get together to chat and talk about things of concern to them. They are flourishing in my area. Every time I go to one, I am amazed at the number of people who attend, the range of projects they undertake, the work they do and the way they feel when you go in. They are very, very special places. This shed, as I said, will be in a place which is also very special. They have been essentially invited in by the old Parramatta girls who were residents in the home for quite a few decades. So it is a really nice place to visit, and I am looking forward to being at their first meeting on Saturday.
University of Queensland Research
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (09:54): I recently had the honour of attending the launch of the Clem Jones Centre for Ageing Dementia Research at the Queensland Brain Institute, based at the University of Queensland. QBI was established 10 years ago; one decade later, the institute is celebrating another milestone with the opening of Australia's first facility focused solely on the prevention and treatment of dementia.
Brain disease is more common than cancer and heart disease, and impacts the lives of millions of Australians. Dementia is the fourth leading cause of death among Australians over 65, part of an at-risk group of Australians making up 13 per cent of the population, or about 2.7 million people. A further 1.2 million Australians care for someone with dementia. According to Alzheimer's Australia, by 2050 the at-risk population will have increased to between 6.5 million and 12.7 million, and millions more will be impacted. These are concerning figures, and medical advances are desperately needed. Investing in medical research leads to better healthcare practices, less disease and improvements to quality and longevity of life. It also helps to address the significant pressures facing the public health system.
The centre will be headed by leading neuroscience expert Professor Jurgen Gotz. Professor Gotz has made several groundbreaking discoveries, including work that brought to light the molecular mechanisms underlying the loss of brain function in Alzheimer's. It is wonderful to have people like Professor Gotz working to improve the health of Australians, and I wish him and his team success with their future research.
Earlier this month, Premier Campbell Newman announced a $4 million international collaboration to improve sorghum productivity under drought conditions. Scientists from UQ's Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation will work with colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to address problems common to sorghum growers in many of the globe's low-rainfall regions. The research is bolstered by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, supported by the department, UQ and the Ethiopian government.
Sorghum is the world's fifth most important cereal and a staple food crop for millions of people in the semi-arid tropics. It is crucially important to food security in Africa, as it is grown in the drier and resource-poor areas, where its capacity to better tolerate drought, high temperature and low fertility make it a preferred crop to maize. This project will use sophisticated computer modelling to exploit new marker technologies, which allow rapid development of new varieties and will generate benefits beyond the initial target countries and Australia. The research template provides a basis for other crop improvement programs in impoverished countries such as Ethiopia.
This is just a snapshot of some of the groundbreaking work being done at the University of Queensland which is benefiting people not just in Australia but across the world.
Aged Care
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (09:57): Today I want to speak about the importance of providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services for our ageing migrant communities. Ageing, as we all know, will affect all Australians. As we come to terms with dealing with our growing ageing population and all the complexities that come with that, it is also very important to keep in mind that every elderly Australian has a personal story with a uniquely individual experience. With regard to the ageing migrant communities in my electorate, I can characterise them as communities where the social expectation is that families will care for their elderly parents and relatives rather than immediately placing them in nursing homes. This particular cornerstone of family values is very prevalent in my very multicultural electorate. I want to speak about a recent visit to one of our aged-care facilities that is attempting to address that very cornerstone.
My electorate is made up of a diverse range of communities. The latest census shows that some 4,000 of my residents are Italian born; there are 2,000 who are Greek born; and there are about as many, 2,000, who are originally from Vietnam. I have about 4,000 residents who were born in India, some 1,000 born in Croatia and then, of course, in the larger communities, there are the Turkish and Iraqi communities. As a representative of a culturally diverse electorate I know, and a lot of other people know, that these numbers reinforce the desperate need for aged-care facilities in this country that are specifically tailored to service the elderly migrant residents and their needs and requirements, not only as they age but also as dementia becomes a major issue and a very difficult one to understand.
I recently visited an aged-care facility in my electorate, called Springtime Sydenham, and I was struck by a service that this nursing home provides. It is a facility that is very close to a densely populated community. There are lots of Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, Polish, Hindi and Croatian migrant communities. Their response to some of these culturally sensitive needs is to provide a day respite service for the elderly, particularly for those who have mild dementia. This means that children of these aged people are able to leave their parents at the nursing home for the day. They are looked after from 10 o'clock to two o'clock while the kids go off and do whatever they need to do—in this case, work—and the elderly are collected in the evening and go home. This balance of respite during the day combined with living at home with the family is an excellent way of meeting these demands. I congratulate Springtime Aged Care, because I think it is a great example of how we make those balances.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (10:00): The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self-Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013—doesn't that just roll off the tongue?—is before the House as a MYEFO, Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, budget measure that the government announced in October last year.
The bill seeks to provide for an increase in the levy payable by a trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund from $191 to $259 commencing from the 2013-14 financial year. It also brings forward the liability to pay the levy during the income year instead of the current requirement to pay a number of months after the end of the year, when the self-managed superannuation fund lodges its return. So the bill is about both a fee increase and a fee bring-forward. The government argued that this measure was required to ensure that the Australian Taxation Office's cost of regulating the sector was fully recovered.
The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in order to understand the justification for this increase to the levy. The committee found that it was in fact Treasury, not the ATO, which initiated the increases and bring-forward provisions within this bill. Whilst the committee is yet to finalise and publish its report, and answers to questions taken on notice are yet to be received, current evidence suggests that the initial timing of the government's plan was driven more by its own desperate need for revenue to bolster the budget bottom line, which is fast deteriorating before our very eyes. The bill is more about a dash for cash than a considered and compelling policy measure, as was revealed by the committee's deliberations.
This government has guaranteed the Australian people on over 500 occasions that it would deliver a budget surplus in 2012-13. The Treasurer has promised a surplus on over 350 occasions since 2 May 2010. That promise was 'iron clad'. Failure was 'not an option'. The surplus would be delivered 'come hell or high water'. The finance minister has promised a surplus on 142 occasions since September 2010, saying it was 'not negotiable'. The Prime Minister has promised a surplus more than 150 times since 24 June 2010. She even got ahead of herself, claiming the surplus had already been achieved. In her address to the McKell Institute on 4 July 2012 she said: 'We saved jobs, stayed out of recession and got back to surplus.' Those statements suggested the government peaked early, but it certainly has not delivered a surplus.
On the eve of Christmas last year, the Treasurer finally admitted that it was unlikely that this government's promise of a surplus in the current financial year would be delivered. He said, 'Dramatically lower tax revenue now makes it unlikely that there will be a surplus in 2012-13.' It is an interesting observation, as the latest forecasts suggest the Commonwealth's revenue is set to grow by 7.7 per cent this financial year. The small business community, which I travel through in the area of the member for Ryan and all around the country, would just love to have revenue growth of 7.7 per cent. Alas, that is not their experience; but it is this government's experience. So the revenue growth is substantial; it is significant; but clearly it is not of the herculean proportions needed to cope with the spending binge of this government.
Even when the Treasurer will not tell the Australian people what the bottom line will be, he persists in batting back concerns about escalating debt, the trajectory of our indebtedness, the scale and size of the budget surplus and when, if ever, a Labor government will bring us back to surplus. I think it was 1989 when Labor last delivered a surplus and Mick Hucknall and Simply Red had the hit that year If you don't know me by now. How topical is that? We do know this Treasurer, we do know Labor governments and we do know that a budget surplus is probably further into the future than that hit single was in the past.
The government pays lip-service to balanced budgets but Labor has not delivered a surplus in its last 10 budgets. And with the election to be in September this year it is becoming clearer by the day that this Treasurer will never actually deliver a surplus, as we hear new announcement after new announcement, putting further pressure on the expenditure side of the Commonwealth's finances, with little sign that there are revenue measures or reductions in other areas of expenditure to cover them. I give Labor credit for one thing, and that is a perfect record—five whopping huge budget deficits out of five budgets—a record which I hope no future government will seek to emulate.
This budget measure from the government is simply a desperate act to try to plug holes in a fast deteriorating budget position. All superannuation funds are subject to a supervisory levy to fund the regulatory costs of ensuring funds comply with superannuation legislation. Separate levy arrangements apply to SMSFs and to registrable superannuation entities to recover the costs of their regulation by the ATO and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority respectively. The government claims, and the industry does not disagree, that the current SMSF supervisory levy does not fully recover the ATO's costs of regulating the sector. However, the industry would like the government to justify the quantum of this increase and also the issue relating to bringing forward the timing of its payment.
According to the government, the bill ensures that the ATO's costs of regulating the sector are fully recovered, but we are yet to receive any sufficient detail as to the basis of this cost recovery and the calibration of the fees represented by this bill. The explanatory memorandum merely asserts that the current levy does not fully recover the ATO's cost of supervision and does not provide any basis for the size of the increase. The bill also changes the law so that the levy is collected from SMSFs within the same income year for which the levy applies, with a date to be set by regulation. Currently a fee is payable a number of months after the year-end position following lodgement of the annual return.
While the government in MYEFO announced that it would increase the SMSF levy from $191 to $259, this further change impacts the timing of the payment, which results in funds having to pay a total levy of $321 in the 2013-14 year—as you have two payments because of the bring-forward to be paid in that year—and a total levy of $388 in the 2014-15 year. This is a blatant revenue grab. It reminds me that some state governments offer a 10-year motor vehicle licence, so that they suck in 10 years' worth of revenue in one year and then where is the revenue in the years that follow? This is all part of the fiscal fiction that there will somehow be a surplus this financial year. It is a blatant revenue grab and the bring-forward component simply plugs a worsening budget position.
The bill before the House amends the Superannuation (Self-Managed Superannuation Funds) Supervisory Levy Imposition Regulations 1991 to increase the threshold of the maximum levy payable by trustees of self-managed superannuation funds. This amendment will provide flexibility to increase the levy. We wonder where it will go to next. I feel the concern of the many who have self-managed superannuation funds as they express it to me: are they the next cash cow? Out of the various funds under management in the superannuation retirement income sector, the self-managed superannuation funds is the largest pool and for many in small business it is their pool where they seek to provide a retirement nest egg after years of toil—at the moment a lot of difficult toil in difficult economic circumstances. I cannot help but think that this Labor government sees that resource pool as a tantalising opportunity for a further cash grab. We watch with interest as the budget is being formulated. There has been lots of discussion about superannuation being the next cash cow to be milked to paper over this enormous budget difficulty that the government has got itself into. We wait to see. We watch with interest whether the government will seek to gouge this levy further by either escalating it with a higher ceiling or putting some other cost-recovery fee in place as it desperately looks for new taxes to pay for its worsening budget position.
This government is yet again hitting up the superannuation system to try and fix its own problems. Many remember former Prime Minister Rudd's assurance that there would be no messing with superannuation—'not a jot, not a tittle'. You can look at the references as to where that phrase comes from, but these are big fiddles that have happened in the superannuation industry. They show that that assurance provided by a Labor leader was completely empty, vacuous, and stood no chance of surviving when there is a dash for cash motivating so much of the government's decision making and policy development processes.
This levy is yet another impost in a long line of cost increases which have been incurred by our nation's superannuation system. Over $8 billion has been ripped out of super since Labor came to power in November 2007. These measures are the temporary reduction, the co-contribution matching rate, the reduction in concessional contribution tax limits, the changes to income definition for co-contribution purposes, the extending of the pause for indexation for the co-contribution threshold, and the further reductions in the co-contribution matching rate. They are haphazard changes and fee gouging. That is no way to run a superannuation system and build confidence in what is a long-term investment and commitment by those contributors and those that rely on their superannuation for their income today.
The coalition will not be opposing this bill, but we remain concerned at the government's justification for this support of this supposedly cost-recovery measure, given that there is no calibration to validate that in any of the material that has been provided to date. We are particularly vigilant in keeping a very close eye on the government as they size up the superannuation cash cow just to see how much they can milk out of it in the upcoming budget.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:11): I speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013. I hope those people listening will recall probably the penultimate paragraph of the member for Dunkley's speech, where he was bleating about and bemoaning this legislation: how bad it was and how terrible it was for the Australian economy, the Australian community and those people with superannuation. Then he said, 'But we're not going to oppose it.' What hypocrisy is that! He was bleating, bemoaning, carping, whingeing and whining, and then he said that he is not going to oppose it. I would have more respect and more regard for the member for Dunkley's views on superannuation if he were not going to oppose the $500 tax on the 24,000 low-income earners in my electorate of Blair—that is what his policy is—and if he had actually voted in favour of the increase from nine to 12 per cent in superannuation co-contribution. But, no, he has not.
Now, a bit of fact: he is going on about how this will almost impoverish people in SMSFs, but the average assets—as at 30 June 2011—in SMSFs were $963,002 in every superannuation fund. This new levy is $259 a year. I will repeat that. The average asset in these superannuation funds is getting up to close to a million dollars, and it is a levy of $259—that is what it is. It is consistent, mind you, with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority regulated funds, which pay the superannuation supervisory levy in the same financial year it is levied. APRA regulated funds have been paying that superannuation supervisory levy in the relevant year for years. We think it is appropriate to do this. It is appropriate for a cost-recovery levy.
The other thing that the member for Dunkley was going on about was how this is some sort of massive amount of money that we are going to pull out. This is a very small amount of money across the forward estimates. The actual figures are: 2012-13 revenue, zero; 2013-14, $70 million; 2014-15, $164 million; 2015-16, $88 million. That is the gross revenue without the expenses associated with it. That is the financial impact of this particular policy. But you would think that we were putting on billions of dollars of tax and gouging it out of self-managed superannuation funds.
I have had a bit of history with this. Before I was elected, I was a businessman for 20 years—a senior partner of a law firm and managing partner in relation to that, with my then partner, Matthew Turnour. We ran a business and I had my own superannuation fund—the Neumann-Turnour superannuation fund—in relation to this, so I have a bit of history and experience in relation to this and these are very common themes. As at 30 June 2012 there were nearly 479,000 SMSFs, with 914,000 members. We have seen almost 35,000 new ones registered in 2011-12. We have, in this country, about $1.2 trillion invested in superannuation and that is going to increase to about $6.2 trillion by 2036.
We have the fourth largest privately managed superannuation funds in the world, and this government commissioned Jeremy Cooper to undertake a review on 29 May 2009—a commission now known as the Cooper review—and we responded positively to 139 of the 177 recommendations of that review. We have been reformers with respect to superannuation, from the MySuper accounts to lifting the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which will impact and help 44,000 local workers in my electorate alone. If someone is 30 years old and on average earnings, they will have about $110,000 more in superannuation savings by the time they retire. The levy pales into insignificance compared to that sort of arrangement, which we are undertaking and is opposed by those opposite and which will result in 8.4 million Australians getting a big boost to superannuation. And the Liberal Party opposes it tooth and nail. We are lifting the capacity of people in Australia to live in security and dignity in retirement, and we think that is so important.
As the member for Dunkley accurately pointed out, the ATO is responsible for regulating this particular sector, and regulation is compliance based and on a cost-recovery basis as well. To that end, this bill increases the maximum levy payable by SMSFs for a year of income from $200 to $300 per year, effective from 2013-14, with the actual levy increasing from $191 to $259 a year from 2013-14. It will help the ATO to regulate the sector more effectively, in terms of costs, and ensure that these self-managed superannuation funds pay the full cost of this. This is prudent reform. It is another example of the government undertaking responsible economic management, and I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (10:18): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013. The stated purpose of this bill is to increase the cap on the levy which can be charged each year to self-managed superannuation funds. The levy is charged as part of cost-recovery arrangements under which the Australian Taxation Office incurs costs in its function of supervising the self-managed superannuation fund sector.
The premise of this bill is that the current SMSF levy does not fully recover the Australian Taxation Office's costs of supervising the sector. Indeed, that is what the explanatory memorandum says to us. There is a statement in paragraph 1.5 that says:
The current SMSF supervisory levy does not fully recover the ATO’s costs of regulating the sector.
In the time that is available to me today, I will make three points. First of all, the purpose for which this measure has been developed and the process by which this measure has been developed have been poor, and the sector which is regulated is anxious about this measure—and that anxiety has been exacerbated by the poor process. Secondly, the evidence which has been provided regarding the nature and extent of this cost shortfall raises serious questions. Thirdly, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is yet another instance of a desperate grab for cash by a hopeless government which has lost control of the budgetary and fiscal process.
I start with the proposition that the process has been very poor and that, as a result, the sector which is regulated is very anxious. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on which I sit held a hearing on this bill last week. We heard from a number of players in the sector, particularly the Self Managed Super Fund Professionals Association of Australia. Their evidence was very interesting. Amongst other things, they highlighted that they were uncertain as to whether the changes to collect the SMSF levy in the same year that it is levied, which is one of the measures contained in the bill, will result in changing the current method of collecting the levy through the SMSF annual tax return. I acknowledge that officials of the Australian Taxation Office later in the hearing indicated that it was not intended to change the current collection methods. That is good news. It is surprising and disappointing, however, that it took until the occurrence of this hearing for that information to be communicated to the sector which is to be regulated. It is surprising and concerning that this degree of uncertainty about a fundamental aspect of these reforms was allowed to fester in the sector that is to be regulated.
It is also noteworthy that the Self Managed Super Fund Professionals Association highlighted their concerns as to the basis of the increase and their doubts as to whether the case had been made out that the increase was justified. They also highlighted the fact that there has been absolutely no consultation between the Australian Taxation Office and their organisation about this increase.
I will quote from the submission of the Self Managed Super Fund Professionals Association of Australia. In paragraph 5 they say:
We believe that an increase in the SMSF levy cap—and the levy itself—should only take place after consultation between the ATO and the SMSF industry. This consultation would allow an opportunity for the ATO to justify any need for an increase in the SMSF levy to industry.
They go on to say in their submission that they have significant concerns about the particular increase in the levy which is to occur as part of this package of measures. At paragraph 8 they have this to say:
The increase to $259 represents a 35.6% increase in the SMSF levy which is the largest increase in the levy since it moved from $45 to $150 per year in 2006-07. This increase has been made without any justification to SMSF trustees why increased funding is needed for the ATO regulation of SMSFs.
So it is clear that we have here yet another poor process from this government. There has been inadequate consultation with the regulated sector, key aspects of the reforms have not been adequately explained, there has been anxiety and concern, and it is not a public policy process which observers can look at with any degree of confidence.
I turn next to the specific and central issue underlying this bill, which is the existence and quantum of the claimed shortfall in revenues the Australian Taxation Office receives from the levy, compared to the cost it incurs in regulating this sector. I asked a number of questions of the officials of the Australian Taxation Office about this very question at the hearing last week. I regret to say that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that that statement from the explanatory memorandum is a misleading statement. That is a statement which reads as follows.
The current SMSF supervisory levy does not fully recover the ATO's costs of regulating the sector.
On this point, we were informed by both the SMSF professionals association and it was confirmed by the Australian Taxation Office that the Australian Taxation Office had told an industry forum, held quite recently, that the annual cost of carrying out the supervisory functions in relation to self-managed superannuation funds is presently around $85 million per year. This raises the question: what is the revenue which is presently raised by the Australian Taxation Office from the levy? Is it more or less than $85 million? If you do the maths on the basis that the current levy is $191 per year and if you multiply that by the number of self-managed superannuation funds in existence as at 30 June 2012, you get a number which is in fact somewhat higher than $85 million. Officials of the Taxation Office did put to the inquiry that there is a reduction factor. The point they make is that not every fund which is shown as being in existence is actually still operational and you do not succeed in collecting the levy from every fund. I accept that proposition. That makes sense. But what is difficult to understand is how it can be said that the current levy does not raise sufficient revenue to cover the expenses of the Australian Taxation Office.
I asked an officer of the Australian Taxation Office this very question in the hearing. My question was as follows:
I would like to ask you about the statement you made before … that apart from the timing difference, broadly, for 2011-12 what will be collected under the levy will cover the costs?
The answer from the Taxation Office official, Mr Peterson, was as follows:
Yes, we expect it to be in that order.
In other words, officials of the Australian Taxation Office informed the parliamentary inquiry that the amount raised under the present levy covers the present costs of the Australian Taxation Office in supervising the self-managed superannuation funds sector. If that is so, it is extremely difficult to understand the justification for the statement in the explanatory memorandum in paragraph 1.5, which states:
The current SMSF supervisory levy does not fully recover the ATO's costs of regulating the sector.
It must be acknowledged that there are two factors at work here. The first is the aggregate amount that is recovered in respect of funds in existence in the relevant year. The second is the timing issue. When is the money actually collected. The explanatory memorandum points out—and this was amplified during the hearing—that there is presently a lag because the money is only collected in the subsequent year. It does not strain logic or credibility to argue that if you correct for that lag by collecting the levy in the year to which it is referrable rather than in the subsequent year, you will assist the Taxation Office to deal with the current timing mismatch; the fact that it currently faces a lag before it collects the funds which go towards the cost of carrying out its supervisory function. But of course that is a separate and distinct measure in this bill. I am not raising questions about that measure. I am raising questions about the core measure in this bill which is to increase the cap on the SMSF levy from $200 to $300 and, associated with that, for there to be an increase in the amount that will be charged in the next year from $191 to $259, I believe it is—in any event, that very significant percentage increase which was highlighted by the industry association of some 35.6 per cent.
I asked some further questions on notice of the Australian Taxation Office when they appeared before the committee hearing last week. It may be that their answers would shed light upon this central question as to how it can be said that the levy does not cover the ATO's costs when an official of the ATO confirmed to the parliamentary inquiry last week that the costs for the 2011-12 are broadly met by what is currently collected. It may be that answers to questions on notice would explain the discrepancy. I do not know because, having made inquiries with the committee secretariat this morning, to date the Taxation Office has not bothered to provide answers to my questions on notice. I want to express my regret that officials of this statutory agency have declined, or have not yet seen fit, to provide responses to questions on notice from a parliamentarian on this important matter.
The third point I want to make is that I believe there is a conclusion which is very hard to avoid from this set of circumstances which is that in substance this measure is motivated, yet again, by a desperate grab for cash from a government which has wholly lost control of the budgetary and fiscal process. If you look at the year by year impacts of this measure in the explanatory memorandum you will see that in 2013-14 it is going to raise $70 million, in 2014-15 it is going to raise $164 million and in 2015-16 it is going to raise $88 million. A significant part of this increase is due to the timing effect. In other words, up until now we have had a system where in each year an SMSF pays a levy which is essentially referable to the expenses incurred by the Taxation Office in the previous year. That is now to change so that in each year the levy will be paid in the same year as the Taxation Office incurs the supervisory experience, but during the transition period there will be a doubling up. During the transition period, self-managed superannuation funds will be paying an amount which is calculated based not only on the previous year's levy but also on the current year's levy. True it is, under the bill, this will be spread over two years, but the immediate impact of this timing change is to give a one-off benefit to this government, which is desperate for cash.
This is classically the kind of manoeuvre in the business world you see from companies which are struggling. You see this when companies for example change the timing treatment of receipts and that is precisely what we are seeing from this government when it comes to this particular measure. It is purportedly based on the need to increase what is collected because that is necessary so that the tax office's cost will be fully recovered.
As I have indicated, the evidence before the committee and the evidence contained in the explanatory memorandum raises very serious questions as to whether it is in fact true that on the present numbers the tax office is not fully recovering its costs. There are very real questions as to whether that is true. When you look in substance at what is occurring, it is quite clear that what is occurring is something which is completely typical of this government, which has lost control of the budget. It is engaged in a desperate scramble for cash wherever it can, coming up with whatever excuse it can possibly derive to justify that, and there are very real questions about whether the stated basis for these measures is truly made out.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (10:34): One could be forgiven in this debate for thinking that this Labor federal government is the only government that has had any inclination towards increasing the SMSF levy, but reality bears out a different story. The 2007 Howard government increase of the levy ran from an existing levy of $45 to $150. My maths may be slightly wrong but I believe that that is slightly higher than the increase that we are talking about today.
When we are talking about this and why the levy is being increased, it is important to bear in mind the context of its history. Indeed, the motivations of the Howard government for making that increase in 2007 was, surprisingly enough, that the levy no longer covered the cost of the ATO's cost of regulation of the SMSF sector or the expected costs of future regulation. So it seems to me that those opposite—and, indeed, the member for Bradfield—seem to be singing a very different tune today. It would be nice to have a bit of consistency from those opposite, but I suspect I will be living in hope for rather a lot longer.
The SMSF sector, as many others have remarked, is a rapidly growing sector, and in the course of the last 10 years the number of self-managed super funds has increased substantially. As at June last year there were just under 480,000 self-managed superannuation funds in Australia. The moneys held in those funds constituted just over 30 per cent of Australia's total super savings, which makes them a very sizeable component of the superannuation industry.
The bill before us would occasion two changes to the arrangements which presently apply, pursuant to which the supervisory levy applies to self-managed super funds. The first of those changes would go to the timing of payment of the SMSF supervisory levy. The bill contemplates that this would be brought forward so that it is levied and collected in the year of income to which the supervision relates. This is a change that is consistent with the treatment of APRA-regulated funds. The effect of the change is to simply bring SMSFs into line with the other funds from the perspective of timing of payment of levies.
Having participated in the inquiry into the bill conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I am aware that some participants in the inquiry indicated that they had questions about whether the method for collecting the levy would be impacted upon by the proposed changes. Currently, the levy is collected through the annual tax return of self-managed super funds, and questions were raised regarding whether it was the case that this arrangement would be replaced with a separate process for invoicing and payment. The committee was, however, advised by the ATO during the course of the inquiry that this would not be the case, and that this would ensure that there is no further compliance burden for SMSFs arising from the change occasioned by the bill.
The second of the changes contemplated by this bill and flagged in MYEFO is that the cap that applies to the supervisory levy which can be set by the government is increased. Under the bill before us, that cap would increase from $200 to $300. The government has noted, however, that the actual amount of the levy will be $259 from the 2013-14 income year. As the supervisory levy is a cost-recovery charge, it is reviewed periodically and adjusted in circumstances where full cost recovery has not occurred. For the income year 2011-12, based on evidence given to the committee, the current cap will not be appropriate, having regard to the current growth in the SMSF sector. During the year from June 2011 to June 2012 the total number of funds in the sector grew by 80 per cent. Increased costs incurred by the ATO, combined with that substantial increase in funds, reflect that the existing cap must be adjusted. As I said at the outset, this is not the first time that a government of any political persuasion has embarked upon this process. I refer again to the 2007 increase of the levy by the Howard government from $45 to $150 on the basis that the levy no longer covered the cost of the ATO's cost of regulation of the sector or the expected costs of future regulation.
During the course of the inquiry the ATO recognised the need for it to become increasingly efficient in its supervision of SMSFs. It also noted that the calculation of the new levy actually assumes a slower rate of growth in the number of self-managed super funds than is likely to be the case. Accordingly, the ATO contemplates that economies of scale in its supervision of funds might be possible and that efficiencies might arise from that. Despite this, there seems to be no reason the levy should not be adjusted as set out in the bill and on the basis that previous governments have done precisely the same thing.
The Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has encouraged the tax office to release publicly accessible information on a regular basis about the costs that it incurs as a result of functions undertaken by it in the regulation of SMSFs.
The bill before us is something that has been flagged in MYEFO. It has been entirely consistent with previous actions taken by governments in relation to the cost-recovery basis upon which levies are to be charged, and it is somewhat hypocritical for those opposite to now be calling it into question. I am particularly pleased to be able to support the bill today and to have participated in the deliberations of the joint committee. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:40): I rise today to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013. We have heard a number of speeches in this place as to the import of this bill, but let me recount that the bill amends the Superannuation (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1991 to increase the maximum levy payable by a trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund for an income year from $191 to $259 from the 2013-14 financial year. It brings forward the liability to pay the levy during the income year instead of the current requirement to pay some months after the year ends, when the SMSF lodges its returns.
Whilst the government made the announcement in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook last year that it would increase the levy from around $191 to $259, the implementation and timing is such that these changes will in fact result in a total levy being paid in the 2012-13 year of $321 and a total levy in the 2014-15 year of $388. We on this side understand that levies do need to be recovered on a cost-recovery basis. We respect that attitude, we respect that that is a responsible way to manage the budget and, in that statement, we do not oppose this bill.
However, it has been clear from the evidence presented to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services that there is a suggestion that the amounts and levies being charged on self-managed super funds are over and above what would be considered cost recovery. Evidence was presented to the committee by the Self-Managed Superannuation Professionals' Association of Australia that there was no justification provided, no evidence presented, by the government that this was in fact cost recovery. They said in evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
As we alluded to previously, the increased costs have been around changes from the Stronger Super package. We have seen those in the 2011-12 budget papers and again in the 2012-13 papers, but, in contrast, in the recent 2012-13 MYEFO papers, there was no justification or reasons given accompanying the increase in the levy.
This was indeed curious, and members asked questions of the ATO. They asked questions regarding the increase and the bring-forward provisions of the bill. The ATO were asked the specific question:
Who proposed this increase in the levy? Was it the tax office or the government?
The ATO's response was:
I think it is best to take that one on notice. My recollection—but my memory sometimes fails—is that on this occasion the discussion was probably initiated by Treasury, but I may be mistaken.
We are not convinced that this cost increase was one that did not come directly from the government. In fact, the government has a very strong track record of ripping money out of the superannuation sector. Over five years it has ripped more than $8 billion out of the superannuation sector.
I wanted to talk in the time available today about the changes that the government has made to superannuation and how it is having a very direct and significant impact on those people who are doing the right thing—trying to save for their future and be self-reliant. It is critical that people have confidence in our superannuation system and, when people invest their hard earned money, they need certainty—certainty around how that money will be taxed going in and how it will be taxed coming out. They need certainty around the contributions that they can make. They need to know that there will not be continued fiddles with the superannuation system.
This government has in fact made more than 23 fiddles with the superannuation system. That is almost four changes every year, and that is the very opposite of certainty. Some of those changes include: the reduction of the rate at which the government superannuation co-contribution is paid from 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2014; a limit on concessional contributions, reduced from $50,000 per annum to $25,000 per annum; matching the rate for government superannuation co-contributions to be reduced from $1 to 50c, with the maximum benefit also to be reduced from $1,000 to $500; the maximum incomes threshold also proposed to fall from $61,920 to $46,920; and the indexation of concessional contribution caps proposed to be paused for one year in 2013-14 at $25,000 for individuals under the age of 50 and $50,000 for individuals aged 50 and over. That is not to mention, of course, the penalties that have been applied to those people who many have inadvertently breached the ever-moving caps that the government seems to change at every opportunity.
There are significant penalties that go towards ensuring that those people will not see the benefit of the hard earned money they have contributed to their superannuation savings to ensure that they can live the life that they would like to live in retirement. How does the provision to introduce another levy on self-managed super funds incentivise investment in our superannuation system? How does this provide more certainty? The answer is that it does not, and we have already heard from the Prime Minister that she intends to make yet further changes to superannuation. In her Press Club address earlier in the year she flagged that there will be more changes in the budget around the tax arrangements to do with superannuation.
I hear the very deep and real concerns from constituents, who raise this matter with me in a very heartfelt way and who are desperate to know what faces them in retirement. Let me read into Hansard the letter that I received from Glen. He says this:
I am writing—desperately—about the noise on taxation of Superannuation/ Pensions. My wife and I are just recently retired. I am 67 and have worked to the end. We had planned for retirement—foregoing much else to fund our superannuation. And we are totally self-funded. This was long term planning and was done deliberately not to be a burden on the Government and to enjoy some financial freedom. Although the amount we have accumulated in Super may look large, it is frightening to watch how long it is going to have to last while supporting our planned lifestyle.
To be candid, the current 'noise' is terrifying us.—
And this noise is of course coming from the government.
We had planned everything a long time ago based on Peter Costello's initiatives and have taken advantage of every new government adjustment while relying on the promises. We are asking you—
maybe that should be pleading—
to lend you weight to preventing changes for those of us who are now self-funded in retirement without any possibility of re-entering the workforce.
Let me read from what Angela sent me:
As I am facing retirement myself in the not too distant future I am deeply concerned about the proposal to tax the income of self-funded retirees in the name of addressing structural problems within the budget. The only structural problem that I can identify is the reckless and wasteful spending that has occurred over the last six years. Like many self-funded retirees, I have worked, saved and salary sacrificed in order to build-up enough superannuation to ensure that I could enjoy a reasonably comfortable retirement for as long as possible. With the exception of a small minority of wealthy people most self-funded retirees are not 'wealthy' and should not be the subject of an unfair tax impost. Apart from the activities of this government, inflation and rises in the cost of living pose the greatest threat to the financial security of self-funded retirees who are living on a fixed income. Many of them run out of money after a short period of time and qualify for a pension. For example, 10 years ago $500,000 was considered adequate for a couple to retire on. Today, financial advisers are recommending that a couple would require at least $1 million in superannuation in order to retire comfortably. It has been estimated that $1 million in superannuation will deliver an annual income of approximately $55,000-$65,000. This might seem to be a reasonable income today however in ten years time an annual income of $55,000-$65,000 may be insufficient. To give you an example, when I started working 40 years ago, I earned the grand total of $35.00 per week. Today, $35.00 might buy you a weekly zone 1 train ticket, if you are lucky.
I am concerned that self-funded retirees are viewed as a soft target by this government and their hard-earned superannuation savings are considered to be a honey-pot ripe for the picking. Any adverse changes will make superannuation an unattractive investment option for working people with the result that fewer people will be motivated to work and save towards independence in retirement. That defeats the purpose of having a superannuation scheme in the first place.
I say to Angela: I could not have put it any better myself.
Finally, let me tell you what Daryl has said:
Why is it that in this country we continue to penalise hard work, sacrifice and the occasional success?
… … …
I am in my late 50s and therefore approaching retirement age. I have planned for my retirement, sacrificed and worked hard to save for my retirement so I will not have to rely on government handouts. I am therefore increasingly concerned that the incumbent government … continues to covet superannuation with growing evidence that superannuation and superannuation savings could be targeted as soon as the May budget. This is of immense concern for those who have planned carefully, been thrifty and worked damn hard to build a reasonable fund balance. In some respects, one must question whether it was all worth it, or whether sacrifice, responsible savings and thrift should have given way to a more extravagant lifestyle in years past.
We on this side have given an undertaking not to muck around with superannuation, as this government continues to do. We understand the importance of certainty when people are sacrificing and saving for their retirement. We understand the importance of good and responsible economic management so that the government does not have to put its hand in the pockets of the retirement savings of Australians. It is quite, quite wrong. That is why we will stand up for all Australians who want to work hard, create opportunities for their families and be rewarded for their efforts. They should not be penalised. This government has an awful lot to learn, and, come 14 September, the voices of those people who have been penalised will be heard.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (10:55): Firstly, I thank those members who have participated in the debate—the member for Dunkley, the member for Bradfield, the member for Higgins, the member for Blair and the member for La Trobe—for their fine contributions. This Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013 ensures that the levy paid by self-managed superannuation funds is collected in a more timely way and that the Australian Taxation Office's costs of regulating the sector are fully recovered.
The bill allows for a change in timing of the collection of the levy so that it is levied and paid in the same financial year. The bill also increases the maximum levy payable by SMSFs. The SMSF levy is intended to help offset the costs of implementing the government's SMSF Stronger Super reforms, which aim to improve the operation, efficiency and integrity of the self-managed fund sector. The bill will enhance the ATO's ability to deliver these important reforms and continue to effectively regulate the SMSF sector, thus providing better protection for fund members.
A cost recovery impact statement will be published on the Australian Taxation Office's website by 1 July this year—2013—which is when the changes are scheduled to come into effect. The statement will transparently document how the levy complies with the Australian government's cost recovery guidelines.
I will also take this opportunity to table a correction to update the financial impact section of the explanatory memorandum. The update is to allow for revised costing estimates which will be reflected in the explanatory memorandum when the bill is introduced in the Senate. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
COMMITTEES
Health and Ageing Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (10:58): The report Diseases have no borders arose out of the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Ageing into health issues across international borders. This was a very interesting inquiry for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the increasing movement of people across international borders poses many problems. The World Health Organization explains that infectious diseases are caused by pathological micro-organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, parasites or fungi, and that diseases can be spread directly or indirectly from one person to another. An outbreak of an infectious disease can be triggered by any of a range of factors, including poor population health, poor hospital and medical procedures, contamination of water or food supplies, international travel and trade, and changing climatic conditions. Professor Tania Sorrell of the Sydney Emerging Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity Institute told the committee:
When we think about emerging infectious diseases within Australia, we are thinking about what we can do within our own borders—to detect them, to control them et cetera. But we need to recognise that the Asia-Pacific region is quite an important incubator for emerging infectious diseases and for increasing antimicrobial resistance.
As the numbers travelling to and from Australia rises, so too does the risk of transmission of infectious diseases across international borders. We know that infectious diseases do not respect international borders and can take many forms and spread in many different ways. Scientists and medical practitioners tell us in a rapidly changing environment it is difficult to predict when the next pandemic will occur, how severe it will be or how long it will last. Influenza poses a threat to Australia, with Australia and other countries worldwide preparing to respond to a pandemic. As stated in the report, other emerging disease threats of national and international concern are slower to progress but equally of concern to infectious disease experts. Such threats include the emerging antimicrobial resistant diseases both in Australia and abroad, such as multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea.
In this inquiry, the committee considered how Australia responds to the challenges posed by the emerging infectious disease threats, and I encourage members and senators to read the report and look at the recommendations drawn by the committee. I also wish to note that the committee reviewed screening measures implemented at Australia's borders, Australia's ability to respond to national and global health crises and Australia's role in controlling the spread of infectious diseases within the Pacific region. I hope the reductions in services by the Newman government in Queensland do not put Australians at greater risk, but I know they will. The committee also considers the porous border between the Torres Strait Islands and Papua New Guinea and how this impacted on Australia's ability to control the spread of infectious diseases from international sources. Lastly, the committee debated a question looming large among infectious disease experts in Australia: should Australia have a national centre for communicable disease control?
I encourage members and senators to read this report and I thank all those who took the time to talk to members of the committee about these matters of international significance. May I also pass on my thanks to the committee secretariat for all their work on this inquiry. In conclusion, at a national level, Australia's federal system of government means that responsibility is shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. Australia's infectious disease policy framework also sits with a broader global policy content. The committee is reassured by the continued efforts of a number of Commonwealth agencies working in collaboration with the relevant state and territory authorities to implement a range of health screening measures to identify infectious disease before it spreads to the Australian population. It is evident that lessons have been learned in recent times as the Commonwealth and states and territories have responded to the risk associated with infectious disease outbreaks such as SARS and pandemic influenza. We must remain vigilant and alert to properly manage these concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:03): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Freedom of Speech
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (11:03): I take this opportunity to speak about freedom of speech and matters relating to expressing oneself in this country. Although the right to freedom of speech is not enshrined in our Constitution, it nevertheless exist in various statues. But, in recent decades there have been laws created that prescribe what can and cannot be said. While some elements of such laws are correct, some parts also go too far. I contend that there is a narrow margin between protection and restriction, between censorship and the ability to express legitimate concerns so that, in some respects, we come close to mirroring censorship such as in places like Vietnam, Syria, Iraq and Turkey who impose laws on speaking on certain topics, have strict media controls and even sensor what people see or do online. Here we have the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person, or group of people, if done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person, or of part or all the people in a group. While each of the states and territories have what may be called their 'hate speech' laws, there is a lack of consistency between them: some are too vague while others attempt to wrap people up in cotton wool. New South Wales' Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 states you cannot incite hatred towards, or serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or groups on the grounds of race. Tasmania goes even further in their Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, which includes, as well as race, disability, sexuality, belief or affiliations. This is going perhaps too far. In Victoria it is far vaguer. There, it is unlawful to even hold serious contempt for someone based on their beliefs.
I appreciate the need to ensure that criticism or denigration of persons based on race, disability, gender or sexuality must be prevented, however, the right to question and be critical of the choices of people should be allowed. I do not suggest that it should be legal to incite hatred or violence based upon religion or belief, however it should be legal to question and be critical of the choices a person makes, because to do otherwise is to be censored.
Considering that we should not be able to question race, ethnicity, sexuality and disability, I believe it should be acceptable to be openly critical of the choices people make, such as their political views, beliefs, affiliations or actions. These are controllable by the individual and others should be free to have their say on such, as long as it is not to incite violence or hatred. I came across a quote, that 'freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend someone'. Just because what someone says may offend you does not mean they cannot say that.
We need only to look at the reaction associated with the release of the controversial film Innocence of Muslims. While the intent was to be offensive and insulting, it did not incite hatred or call for violence. There were those who responded blindly to the film without seeing it. Having watched it myself, I can vouch for its poor quality, lack of sophistication and ignorance. The response gave credit to the film makers, who did not deserve it. This shows how valuable it is to be informed before abusing your freedom of speech. Even various Islamic leaders banded together to call for an end to the outrageous response many showed towards the film, proving that an uninformed opinion loses its credibility.
There are many nations who have far less freedom of speech and expression than we do, including Saudi Arabia, where religious opinions are suppressed and Vietnam, where critics of the government are blocked. You can even go online to see which sites are censored in Iran. Despite the irony of its supreme leader having Twitter and Instagram accounts, both of these sites are banned from most of their nation's population.
Parliament is one of the few places whereby, under parliamentary privilege, we can speak freely. Yet in Australia there are many restrictions on what people may say and do. While some of this is necessary, it is unnecessary to wrap people up in cotton wool and make attempts to punish those who say or do things you personally find offensive. When reflecting on Voltaire's views, Evelyn Beatrice Hall said that, 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' We must all concur with that view. Just because you do not agree does not mean the person you do not agree with cannot exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression. Related to this are the special deals for some within our society, such as special funds or greater consideration to grant applications based upon their ethnicity, regardless of whether the person or group has outstanding access to opportunities such as education.
We are incredibly blessed to live in a nation where everyone has access to schools and all start with the same opportunities. It is then up to the individual to take responsibility for what they do with those opportunities already handed to them. The point is that only you can take the credit for what you achieve, and only you can take responsibility for any mistakes you make and the decisions you make. You have to take responsibility for failing to take hold of those opportunities.
National Gallery of Australia
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (11:08): The Toulouse-Lautrec: Paris and the Moulin Rouge exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia had its well-attended parliamentary night last night. The exhibition contains more than 110 works from that brilliant French artist, Henri Toulouse-Lautrec. The National Gallery of Australia is exhibiting a collection of his works from 32 galleries around the world, taking you on a journey through his career as an artist living in the hills of what was then an outer suburb of Paris, Montmartre, to the city.
The Lautrec exhibition has run from 14 December and will continue to 2 April. It is the first major retrospective exhibition devoted to the art—the paintings, drawings, posters and prints—of 19th century French artist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec in Australia. Ron Radford AM, the Director of the National Gallery of Australia, is owed great credit for bringing these works together. It just shows you what a significant, important and thoughtful country Australia is if such a great French artist can be acknowledged through such a serious exhibition of his works.
Radford spoke eloquently last night to parliamentarians, giving us an insight into the commitment required to bring an exhibition of such magnitude to Australia. I want to thank personally Simon Elliott, the assistant director of curatorial services for the incredibly detailed explanation he gave to me while I was walking through the exhibition. It gave me an understanding of the many layers of Toulouse-Lautrec's work.
In Australia, we are very fortunate that we find ourselves able to view exhibitions such as this. It is through the efforts of the whole team at the National Gallery of Australia that all Australians are able to witness, in our national capital, this and many other exhibitions. The NGA has almost 800,000 visitors a year on average. It has more than 165,000 works in its collection, which is double the number of any state gallery collection, to the value of $4.7 billion. It is by far the most valuable art collection in Australia.
Its Masterpieces from Paris exhibition in 2010 broke the national record for art exhibition attendance, with nearly 500,000 people coming in four months. Indeed, the National Gallery can proudly claim five of the 15 best attended exhibitions in Australia. The gallery's range embraces all cultures and ages. Last year, 400 centuries of Indian painting jostled with Australia's own Fred Williams. Now Toulouse-Lautrec's sketches and posters of fin-de-siecle Paris sit side-by-side with the indigenous art of Vanuatu.
Henri Toulouse-Lautrec was born in 1864 and died, too early, just before his 37th birthday. In his brief life, he managed to capture the energy of a city at the dawn of modernity. There is a wonderful early, grainy, black-and-white film of Paris in those years that brings that home to you. His art married the high tradition of the European impressionists—although he was never exclusively in that school himself—with the gritty underbelly of Paris. He was enthralled by the demi-monde, the dives and haunts of the underworld, the cafe concerts, the masked balls, the dance halls and the bordellos of late 19th century Paris. The frissonbetween the men about town, who are portrayed there, and the desperate prostitutes of some of the bordellos was something that he really brought to life in his work.
According to the NGA booklet:
The exhibition will trace Toulouse-Lautrec's career from his earliest works to his extraordinary depictions of the Paris social scene, the dance halls, the cafe-concerts, the brothels and theatres. This he did in an insightful way, capturing the essence of his Parisian characters and haunts. Toulouse-Lautrec's subject matter was to become thoroughly modern and he became an influential figure in the evolution of the art of the twentieth century.
One of the things that all of us know implicitly, but do not say, is that of course Toulouse-Lautrec's poster art began that whole popular art medium. It is something imprinted in practically every westerner's mind. The booklet continues:
Toulouse-Lautrec will examine the artist's abilities as an acute observer of Parisian life, his skill as a draughtsman, his experimentation in composition and the brilliance of his technical execution in all media. The exhibition will shed new light on Toulouse-Lautrec through an examination of his involvement in Parisian culture—the high life and the low life.
I congratulate NGA chairman, Alan Myers, and all involved in the National Gallery of Australia on their continuing representation of high culture in Australia and their great work on behalf of the national capital.
Hinkler Electorate: Fishing
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (11:14): The Bundaberg fishing industry has faced one obstacle after another over the years. Many have left the industry in the wake of restrictions over fishing areas. You will all be familiar with the Fisheries (East Coast Trawl) Management Plan, which reduced trawlers from 750 to 500, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Representative Areas Program. But following this year's record flood, which reached 9.5 metres—an all-time record—the district's fishermen are again on their knees. The Burnett River itself was scoured out, which created new channels, sand ridges and sand bars. Walls in the town were severely damaged or washed away; a trawler fuel facility was also washed away. A privately owned major storage facility and cold rooms were severely damaged, and the owners are not likely to resume operations at a level that could service the 21 trawlers that used it in the past. This means that the district's fishermen are in desperate need of a common storage and cold room facility.
It is my belief that this facility would be well suited to a location at Burnett Heads, at the mouth of the Burnett River, where flooding is less intense during times of severe weather conditions. I am proposing that the state and federal governments contribute toward a common-user facility to consolidate the industry and save the livelihoods of district fishers and the region's fishing industry. This was once a very proud industry which had, at its peak, 106 trawlers and, for many years, a stable fleet of 80 trawlers. It is now down to somewhere between 20 and 30 trawlers, and the industry will not remain stable if the ship's chandlers and shipwrights, diesel engineers, radio engineers and the like leave the town for want of work. This is a critical time for the industry, and the thing that would bind it together is a common-user facility. I propose that such a facility be managed by a cooperative of fishermen and service other fishermen who come up and down the coast—who come into, for example, Bundaberg at scallop time and have their catches treated at the port there.
I have had several meetings with the fishermen to discuss the issue, as I have with Mr Crean in his capacity as the regional development minister. Last Saturday morning I met with Premier Newman. He has an open mind to something of the nature of a common-user facility, and I intend to take the matter up with him further. When we get our figures firmed up I will also involve minister Ludwig, who has been designated the federal minister in charge of the events resulting from the recent floods. He has a very good knowledge of Queensland, particularly the coast from Gladstone down to Tin Can Bay, so I am sure he will be helpful.
This is a very important time for the livelihoods of many people. The fisherman's art goes back in human history even to biblical times. Fishermen are part of the lifeblood of the community. They hand their trawlers and their boats on to their sons and grandsons. Fishing is an important part of the fabric of primary industries communities such as Bundaberg. Given, too, that Gladstone has suffered problems with the quality of fish stocks, the southern part of the Barrier Reef fishery is in great trouble. I call on the federal ministers, the state ministers, the local authority and the port authority to come together to create a new, common-user facility both for storage and for freezing and perhaps, in time, for the processing of fish in the Bundaberg district. It is a very important venture, and I hope they will treat it with both compassion and generosity.
Vietnam War
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:19): Today I will talk a little bit about our involvement in the Vietnam War. Australia's commitment in Vietnam extended from 1962 until 1975, and I rise to talk not only about the 47,000 Australian soldiers who were committed to fight the war. Some of these soldiers were conscripted; the participation in war of others was regularised. The war was fought on the basis of protecting the values of freedom and democracy.
I bring to the attention of the House the thoughts of a little girl who grew up in that period and whose brother was in the South Vietnamese military forces. Much of her view is obviously what she saw through her eyes as the brave Australian soldiers fought for her people and their aspirations. This little Vietnamese girl waited patiently for her older brother to return from the war. He told her stories about working alongside the Australian diggers. He worked alongside many nationalities, but he always indicated to her that the Australians were the bravest amongst them all and, indeed, that they had the most heart and care for the Vietnamese people.
More than a decade later, this young girl, Bao Khanh, fled communist ridden Vietnam to find a new life of peace and happiness in Australia. She brought to this country her vibrancy and a passionate commitment to care for her community. Bao Khanh is a very close friend of mine. She is a singer as well as a broadcaster on New South Wales Vietnam Sydney Radio. Since leaving Vietnam, Bao Khanh has never looked back to the earlier days of her life but rather she constantly reminds me of her appreciation of and gratefulness for the Australian people, particularly the Australian soldiers. Her love of this country and for the Australian soldiers who sacrificed their lives—the 521 of them who died in the Vietnam War—caused her to write a song about them, which is titled Always our heroes … always our friends. It is a tribute to and a commemoration of the Australian involvement in Vietnam and her personal appreciation of and her indebtedness to the Australian community and the Australian military in particular.
I have seen the great work that Bao Khanh and her husband, Joachim Nguyen, have done for our local Vietnamese community and also what they have done for the broader Australian community. Both Bao Khanh and her husband, Joachim, are always there to lend a hand when tragedy strikes this country. For instance, through their radio show they raised $57,000 for the Victorian bushfires. They also raised $47,000 for the Queensland Floods Appeal. They take very much on board the title of the song, Always our heroes … always our friends and, in doing so, Bao Khanh has now made a DVD as a fundraiser for Australian Legacy. The money she receives from the sale of her tribute DVD goes directly to Legacy to help support the families of those who are suffering financially and socially for their contribution in the Australian military service, whether in the Vietnam War or in subsequent conflicts.
It is times like these that remind us that, when we talk about our new arrivals, it is not just that they seek Australia as a new home and embrace Australia and its way of life; it is what they have brought to bear here—the colour, the vibrancy and the diversity—and the way that that contributes to the Australian community. I am reminded of an old Vietnamese saying which goes along the lines of 'Those who eat the fruit of the tree should have regard to those who planted the seed.' What Bao Khanh does is almost a dedication to the fact that people who come to Australia are part of the Australian community and want to bring their all to contribute to the community and to make it better. Living in the most multicultural electorate in the country, I get to see the values, the good respect and the understanding that people such as Bao Khanh and her husband, Joachim, contribute to our country—and long may they continue their good work on behalf this country and our community.
Gillard Government
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (11:24): Don't be surprised to see over the coming days an announcement from the Gillard Labor government of a commissioner to deal with grocery prices and the relationship between suppliers, the supply chain and the major supermarkets. We have seen this kind of thought-bubble masquerading as a policy in search of a media headline before. In fact, I was reflecting on the proposal of a media tsar—something which I know is quite close to your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy—with extraordinary powers to solve a problem that the government has not been able to define.
This is at a time when 243,000 jobs have been lost in small business, when there are 10,000 fewer small businesses employing, when small-business formation has halved, when we have historic lows in terms of the trading conditions and the economic prospects for small business. Contrast the tsar for the media, where there is no problem defined, with very real problems facing small business, where the government goes and appoints a Small Business Commissioner without a commission, with no powers whatsoever. This is quite remarkable, but a sign of this kind of approach that the government takes to trying to do something tokenistic in relation to areas where there is a public policy problem.
It has been the Labor formula when trying to look at what the government might do with things like cost of living pressures. Labor introduced Grocery Watch, Petrol Watch and the Petrol Commissioner that has no extra tools to deal with petrol pricing concerns. None of these things has done anything to address cost of living concerns, to build consumer confidence, to ensure that people are paying a fair price and that there are reasonable terms on which a small business can function in the country. Rather than help with cost of living pressures, the government has introduced the world's largest carbon tax. It has not only driven up prices for consumers, it has made the cost of doing business in this country much harder at a time when the economy was already a very challenging one. Under Labor, power prices have increased 89 per cent, gas prices have increased 60 per cent, water prices have increased 46 per cent and insurance prices are up 42 per cent, making a difficult situation even worse.
Now when the ACCC is partway through investigating claims about supermarket supply chain irregularities, the media is briefed about some vague notion of a new grocery code without the government actually knowing where the ACCC's investigations are at, what they may have unearthed, and what an appropriate public policy response might look like. This is all rather peculiar on the back of the rather dubious assurance from the Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, where he said, 'The existing competition framework is adequate to deal with many of these challenges.' So everything is peachy, according to the government. Yet all this thing is going on within the ACCC. Now we have this media brief that there is some new cunning plan that is about to be released involving a supermarket commissioner. This dysfunctional and divided government is killing off the collaborative efforts involving supermarkets, farmers and food producers to formulate an industry-led response to supply chain irregularities.
By the government's flip-flop approach which has left everyone wondering just where things are at, the government has confused and confounded efforts to ensure that dealings between suppliers and big supermarkets are conducted fairly, are commercially transparent and mutually respectful. Labor sat on its hands for four years failing to finalise a response to the Horticultural Code of Conduct. Labor has dismissed supermarket supplier concerns in the past, has said everything is peachy, as is evidenced by the Assistant Treasurer's remark. Labor has stated that the ACCC has all the powers that it needs to deal with complaints, and has urged stakeholders to work together on an industry-led response. Labor has failed to wait for the ACCC to conclude its investigations before briefing the media on the latest thought bubble of a government imposed code—no-one knows what it looks like nor what it might do, but it has derailed collaborative industry efforts. This government is very tired in the eyes of those involved in this area, but it has lots of energy when it comes to making a hash of things. Here is yet another example. What we are faced with is no coherent strategy from the government about how to deal with competition pressures in the economy, in fact very little interest in the challenges that many small businesses face.
Unlike Labor, the coalition has a very clear plan to address concerns around competition in Australia with a root and branch review of our competition laws and by extending unfair contract terms protections. We have proposed a small business and family enterprise ombudsman, one with a purpose, one with powers, one with tools to actually make a difference and one that will get involved where existing code mediation processes do not have the confidence of the parties that are subject to that code. We also want to see an end to these unilateral rebates, and we think the unfair contract term protection provisions will achieve that. We have a clear plan, a commitment to a root and branch review to make sure laws conceived 20 years ago are brought up to date for the current economy and the actual challenges that are faced.
Rare Voices Australia
Ms HALL (Shortland) (11:29): Yesterday I had the privilege of hosting the inaugural Rare Disease Barbecue in support of Rare Voices Australia. Rare Voices Australia is an organisation that plays a really significant role in our community. It provides a voice for those Australians who are struggling to cope with the pressures of living with a rare disease without proper care and coordination. Because the diseases are rare, people suffering from those diseases just do not have the same voice as people who have a more high-profile disease.
World Rare Disease Day was on 28 February. I think it is a day that we should all put aside and remember each year. There are an estimated 70 million people globally who have a rare genetic disorder. In Australia, Rare Voices is supporting two million Australians who are living with a rare disease. That is something like 10 per cent of the Australian population that is directly affected by one or more of the 8,000 rare diseases. Four hundred thousand of those people who have these rare diseases are children. I feel that it is really important that we recognise the significant impact that rare diseases have in our communities and on those people who are living with a rare disease and then on their families and carers who are involved in their lives.
In addition to that, with these confronting statistics, the value of organisations like Rare Voices Australia is really obvious, because they are advocating on behalf of our constituents to see that our constituents have a fair go. Their aim is to give a unified voice to all those Australians out there who are struggling with a disease where there may be only 28 people in Australia, or even fewer, who are living with that disease.
Yesterday, I met with groups that told me their story and told me the stories of people that they were looking after. There are so many different types of cystic fibrosis. That is a fairly rare disease, but when you get into the subgroups it is even rarer. There are blood diseases. There is Pompe disease. I had a young guy doing work experience in my office who had Prader-Willi syndrome. The associated problems that come with living with these rare disorders are not recognised.
People faced with these rare diseases have challenges each and every day, but we have to make sure that they have opportunity and some sort of hope for the future. We need to recognise that we, as members of parliament, need to look at ways we can help. Yesterday, issues such as a register of rare diseases and putting in place a rare-disease plan were mentioned. I think that those are things that, as a parliament, we need to look at.
Megan Fookes, who is from Rare Voices Australia, spoke to us and gave us a lot of information. We also heard from Conor Murphy, who has a form of muscular dystrophy and who works in Melissa Parke's office two days a week. He gave a wonderful address to tell us about his life and how Rare Voices Australia has helped him. We also heard from a carer and from Tracy Dudding, who is a clinical geneticist and who works in the Hunter. (Time expired)
Exports
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (11:34): I rise today to talk on the government's trade agenda—or should I say talk on the government's lack of a trade agenda? I would call on the Trade Minister, Craig Emerson, to stop spending his whole day wandering the corridors, propping up this Prime Minister, who is in her death throes, and to focus instead on the national interest and getting some outcomes for Australian exporters and, in particular, our agricultural exporters.
Our agricultural exporters faced a dry year last year, and so far this year they are facing more dry conditions. Times are getting tough, and what they need is better access to markets. Obviously, that can be done in a variety of ways. We have the World Trade Organisation, where you can get the biggest gains, but that is going to take time, and in the short time frame of this year I doubt that we are going to get any real movement there. We have regional agreements: APEC and the newly developing TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Once again, these bodies are important, and the work going on within the Trans-Pacific Partnership could be very important down the track. I must say I was very pleased to see that Japan is keen to get on board, but that is still going to take time.
Bilaterally, we could start getting some real momentum this year on a couple of agreements—with the free trade agreements that we are negotiating with Japan and South Korea. But what is the government doing? It is putting a block in the way of us progressing either of those free trade agreements. We have already seen, as signalled by the new Japanese Prime Minister, that he is prepared to move by moving to join the TPP negotiations. So why aren't we inviting him to come to Australia and saying, 'We are prepared to get moving on finalising a free trade agreement with Japan'? That is what this government should be doing. There is a real live opportunity there, and it would help our agricultural exporters. In particular, Japan is our biggest export market for dairy products, and South Korea is our largest beef export market. There are real opportunities there for the government.
What is the issue that is getting in the way at the moment? It is investor-state dispute resolution. Why did this government put a blanket refusal on putting investor-state dispute resolution into any more free trade agreements? By doing that it has held up the Japanese agreement and it has held up the South Korean agreement. There is no particular reason for it other than some sort of blanket ideological opposition to investor-state dispute resolution.
I call on the trade minister, the government and the Prime Minister to look again at this. At least they should have the common sense to say, 'If the offer from Japan on agriculture were significant and if the offer from South Korean on agriculture were significant, we would be prepared to look at investor-state dispute resolution.' We would be prepared to say, 'Yes, if you're prepared to do that then we would be prepared to look at this issue.' Why the government will not do this is to me indescribable. We have a real opportunity here to get progress on these agreements, and yet there is this blanket refusal, which seems to be all about protecting the government from potentially being sued as a result of the policy on the plain-packaging legislation. That seems to be the explanation, though we have not heard it from the government. That is why it does not seem to want to go into this area.
It is wrong; it is hurting our agricultural exporters at a time when they need to be getting low-cost access to the markets of our near neighbours. It also makes a mockery of the Asian century white paper. We are meant to be the food bowl for Asia in this century. What are we doing? We are putting in place policies which are preventing that from happening and allowing the US, the European Union, Latin America and New Zealand easier access to these markets than we are allowing our own agricultural exporters.
Ageing
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (11:39): Among the more depressing forecasts for the near-term future is the possibility that health services will be overwhelmed by an ever-increasing number of sick and elderly people, while younger taxpayers will be burdened by a ballooning health budget. So far, such visions of gloom have failed to materialise as advances in health sciences have to some extent reduced the demand for expensive medical interventions. Yet figures show that it presently costs about four times as much to treat, in a given year, a 65-year-old for health care than it does to treat a 40-year-old. Obviously what is urgently needed is some effective means of reducing the cost of medical treatment for the elderly while reducing suffering of both older people and their families. Fortunately, recent discoveries by scientists have made such a prospect less a dream and more a reality, and we are—as a result of recent advances in the understanding of the biology of ageing as well as the discovery of new drugs that retard the ageing process—for the first time about to be able both to retard the decline in health and to extend the maximum lifespan of normal individuals.
In 1964, Canadian researchers, as part of an expedition to Easter Island, known by its inhabitants as Rapa Nui, collected soil samples that were later found to contain a bacterium that produced a metabolite known as rapamycin which has since been found both to increase the lifespan of mice and to improve the health of elderly mice. Of course, there have been many claims of the discovery of such substances in the past. Yet for the first time a drug has been identified that has been conclusively shown to extend the maximum lifespan of mice by some 12 per cent at the same time as it extends average survival by a third of old mice presumed to be too damaged by ageing to enjoy any benefit of the drug. For a human, such an effect means that an eighty-year-old person may have 10 healthy years added to their lifespan.
Some may say that, since mice are not human, such findings may not be relevant to human health. Yet, in medical research, mice are considered model organisms and are widely used to study human genes in human diseases. In responding to concerns about the relevance of medical investigations on mice, the European Commission held a workshop in London in 2010 entitled 'Are Mice Relevant Models for Human Disease?' The workshop found that, since mice are mammals, the mouse genome is very similar to the human genome and that the availability of a unique battery of sophisticated molecular and genetic tools, together with the animal's small size, makes research on mice a cost-efficient model for providing functional information on human genes in health and disease. This means that findings in mice are directly relevant to human health studies.
Scientists have long studied the biological processes involved in ageing and, in the 1990s, discovered that a central component of a cell's energy metabolism is a protein complex called TOR—an acronym for 'target of rapamycin'—which is a mechanism that supervises many growth related activities. TOR is a nutrient sensor that prompts cells to divide when food is abundant. Conversely, when food is scarce, the activity of TOR declines and cells are prompted to break down defective cellular components and use the by-products either for energy or for building new cellular components.
That a nutritionally-adequate, near-starvation diet can extend the healthy lifespan of individuals has been understood for more than 50 years. However, few people are willing to continue with a diet of what has been described as being 'of anorexic severity' despite the well attested benefits of such a regime. It now appears that drugs similar to rapamycin may be able to confer the benefits of a calorie restricted diet by reducing the activity of TOR, with the effect that ageing slows and tissues stay healthy longer. Studies show that the inhibition of TOR not only mimics the effects of calorie restriction but also seems to enhance the effects of so-called geronto-genes, which have been shown to significantly extend the lifespan of the other organisms.
Discoveries by scientists have raised the possibility that human ageing may be retarded by drugs and that major age related disorders, including cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, muscle degeneration, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and macular degeneration may be avoided by many people, which would be a huge benefit to all arising directly from basic research. (Time expired)
Kids in Dangerous Situations Foundation
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (11:44): I rise to pay tribute to the work of the Kids in Dangerous Situations Foundation in Australia. More children die from injury than disease, and each day more than 5,000 kids are unintentionally injured. Of those, more than 100 are so serious they require treatment in hospital. The KIDS Foundation, as it is known, is a not-for-profit charity that promotes good health and is committed to reducing the incidence of childhood injury and death. The foundation is active across Australia, reaching more than 450,000 children and their families, and working in more than 7,000 schools to raise awareness and deliver education programs to teach safety risk management life skills. Their recovery program offers ongoing support for those children and families who unfortunately have been injured and exposed to horrific burns, trauma and other life-changing injuries.
2013 is the 20th anniversary of the foundation, which was set up in 1993 by former pre and primary school teacher Susie O'Neill, who has driven the fantastic work of this organisation with such dedication and enthusiasm for all of this time. In 1993 Susie was visiting an aged-care facility when she noticed a 12-year-old boy. He had suffered horrific injuries in an accident but was forced to share a room with three men in their nineties as there were no child-friendly rehabilitation facilities where he could be treated. That heartbreaking experience inspired Susie to set up her charity to raise funds to assist young people in their recovery and campaign for injury prevention.
KIDS is a national leader in childhood injury prevention but also, importantly, in recovery. In 2006, the KIDS Foundation was the Victorian winner of the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in Community Business Partnerships and in 2008 was the winner of the Victorian communities award. KIDS Foundation is continuing its expansion in other states, including my own and Queensland, where a $140,000 grant from the state government has helped launch a pilot program with widespread community interest. KIDS Foundation runs injury prevention programs including SeeMore Safety and the Safety Club to develop risk management life skills in children with a 'think safe, play safe' attitude. Injury recovery programs include: Kids Place, a rehabilitation unit support for children and young people; the Burn Survivor's Network, which provides support, services and counselling for burns survivors and their families; and TANGO, Together Achieving New Goals and Opportunities, to help kids who have unfortunately suffered life-changing injuries to discover their talents and achieve their goals and pursue new opportunities in spite of that injury. Another initiative is Camp Phoenix, which brings together young burns survivors to share their stories and encourage each other on their journey on the road to recovery and beyond.
I first met Susie at the Royal Challenge paddle and run event in the Shire last year to raise funds for KIDS. I did that with George Mifsud, whose employer, Compass, is the primary sponsor of the KIDS Foundation and has been supporting them for many years. I want to pay tribute to Compass and to George for their enthusiasm in supporting this wonderful charity. Susie and I met again recently to discuss the work of KIDS, particularly within the Sutherland shire. I am very pleased to have taken up Susie's invitation to be the inaugural parliamentary patron for KIDS and I am looking forward to working with Susie and her team to promote their work and to be an advocate for keeping our kids safe, not just within the Shire but right across the country.
Our first endeavour in the shire is to pull together a community steering committee to see if we can get at least five other local schools to take this program. As a parent of two young girls, one of whom has just started at a local public school this year, this has obviously put these issues more into my frame of reference, but I think that one of the things that happen when you are a parent is that these issues become even more apparent. In this place and across the country I look forward to having the opportunity not just to ensure the safety of my own children but to ensure that all children can be safe and can learn how to be safe. When we meet young children and those that have gone into adulthood and we see the tremendous and traumatic impact of life-changing injuries it is important that wherever possible we do what we can, when we can, to give them the skills to help them avoid that situation. That puts obligations on us as parents, as community leaders, in our schools to support those who are trying to get the message across. The KIDS Foundation has wonderful learning materials: books that kids can read, with characters they can identify with. They can take in these stories and learn how to be safe and to stay free from injury.
I also look forward to taking part in this year's Royal Challenge in the shire, down at Audley, where there will be another paddle and run event. I think I will just do the kayak and leave the run to some of my colleagues. That will raise much-needed funds for the initiative in the shire. If you would like to support KIDS, go to kidsfoundation.org.au.
Canberra Centenary: 100 Years, 100 Great Women
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:49): As part of the celebrations for the centenary of Canberra, UN Women honoured 100 women who have made a difference to Canberra at this year's International Women's Day lunch. As a member of the organising committee, I was very proud to help coordinate the nominations for this wonderful celebration. Over the past few months, I have been asking Canberrans to let me know the great women who should be honoured at this lunch. To be nominated, women must have made a significant contribution to Canberra. The women who were nominated were not all high profile. Most were quiet achievers and influencers who helped shape Canberra, and it was great to celebrate their contribution. I would like to thank the organisers and all those involved in the 100 Years: 100 Great Women event. I would also like to thank the sponsors: the CFMEU, the CPSU, the Property Council of Australia, Kreab Gavin Anderson, Kazar Slaven, Blumers lawyers, Slater and Gordon lawyers and the University of Canberra.
Now I would like to formally record the list of nominees for the 100 Years 100 Great Women: Alison Booth, Amanda Bresnan, Amanda Whitley, Ann Hill, Ann Jakle, Anne Brown, Anne Cahill-Lambert, Anne Knobel, Anne Mann, Annette Ellis, Arja Keski-nummi, Azra Khan, Barbara Hall, Beryl Quartel, Beth Mitchell, Beth Vincent-Pietsch, Beverly Knox, Carole Kee, Caroline Buchanan, Caroline Stacey, Carrie Graf, Catherine Carter, Chin Wong, Chris Faulks, Christina Ryan, Christine Goonrey, Coralie Wood, Dawn Waterhouse, Deb Rolfe, Debra Quinnell, Di Johnstone, Diane Kargas AM, Dorothy Broom, Dorothy Roberts, Elba Cruz, Elise Perry, Elizabeth Grant, Elinor Grassby, Emily Murray, Enid Gibson, Reverend Erica Mathieson, Esther Davies, Euthica Lim, Fiona Langford, Fiona McDonald Brand, Frances Shannon, Gail Freeman, Gale Edwards, Georgina Birchall, Glenda Cloughly, Gwen Wilcox, Dr Gwendolyn Gray, Harriet Elvin, Heather Henderson, Helen Lloyd, Helen Maxwell, Helen Watchirs, the Hon. Margaret Reid, Jane Smyth, Janet Moore RN, Jennifer Bradley, Jennifer Martinello, Jennifer Murray, Judy Hackett, Julie Long, Julie Tongs, June Ashmore, Kaarin Anstey, Kasy Chambers, Kate Walsh, Khin Mar Mar Kyi, Kristen O'Conner, Lauren Jackson, Laurie McDonald, Leila Walter, Lenore Coltheart, Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Lisa Berry, Liz Dawson, Louise Curtis, Louise Savauge, Lynne Harwood, Margaret Evans, Margaret Fox, Margo Hodge, Maria James, Marie Coleman—these are all great women—Marie Lenon, Marie Sexton, Marion Le, Marion Reilly, Marlene Keltie, Maureen Cane, Melanie Poole, Meredith Hunter, Michelle Heine, Michelle Marks, Michelle van Wyk, Moira Najdecki, Nicole Lawder, Noor Blumer, Ondina Gregoric, Pauline McNamara, Priscilla Caragh, Professor Marian Sawer, Rachel York, Rebecca Vassarotti, Joy Bartholomew, Rita Fransen, Roberta McRae, Robyn Duncan, Robyn Martin, Rhodanthe Lipsett AO, Ros Phillips, Rosemary Blemings, Rosemary Follett, Roslyn Dundas, Roxanne Missingham, Ruth Bayley, Sarah Schoonwater, Shoba Varkey, Sr Noeline Quinnane, Stasia Dabrowski, Sue Salthouse, Susan Hampton, Susan Wareham, Dr Susie Close, Theresa Byrne, Uyen Loewald, Valerie Reid, Veronica Wensing, Vickey Hingston-Jones, Vicki Still and Viola Kalokerinos. I did it!
Congratulations to all these wonderful women. Thank you so much for the contribution you have made in public ways, in formal ways, in private ways. These women are extraordinary women and many of them have done work through politics, they have done work through the property industry, they have done work through the economy, they have done work in social services—they have given in many, many ways to the Canberra community. I am very grateful for their significant contribution, and it was a wonderful day and a wonderful opportunity to honour these great women—and I got through the list!
Solomon Electorate: Health Services
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (11:54): To the member for Canberra, that was a very impressive list of talented women, so hats off to you for getting through them all in that five minutes. I rise today to put some facts on the table about the Palmerston Hospital. There has been some controversy this week while I have been here. The Labor candidate has suggested that I do not support the Palmerston Hospital, which is an absolute mistruth, because I have always been a strong advocate for the Palmerston Hospital. There was also some mistruth which said that the Northern Territory has scrapped the idea of the Palmerston Hospital. Nothing is further from the truth.
The truth is that the Northern Territory government has said that it wants to put in place some proper planning, which the previous Labor government did not do. The scoping study that the Northern Territory government is proposing is to make sure that we have good health services for the next 30 to 40 years for the people of Palmerston and also for Darwin residents and for the greater Darwin area, with the rural community growing at an enormous pace.
When the Country Liberals proposed the hospital in 2008, the Labor government described the plan as a cruel hoax. That is really quite interesting, because now I hear on radio that the Labor candidate is out saying that it is only Labor that can deliver Palmerston Hospital and saying that $70 million that was proposed under the Labor government is now off the table. Former health minister Kon Vatskalis was on radio saying that he secured the $70 million and now that has gone. The Labor candidate for the seat of Solomon is on the airwaves saying that he secured the $70 million and that has all gone. And they are saying that the coalition has not put forward any money. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the $70 million was planned and allocated under the Health and Hospitals Fund. As far as I am aware, the $70 million is there.
What the Labor candidate is not talking about is the fact that Labor left the Territory in $5.5 billion worth of debt. The previous Labor government in the Northern Territory were saying that the Palmerston Hospital was a priority for them. In May 2011 they secured the $70 million. They had until August 2012. All they achieved was erecting a fence around the block that is the proposed home for the hospital. They went at it like a bull at a gate. While the community says that it needs some facilities there, there was a real lack of planning on where it should go and what facilities it should provide. There was some talk that it was going to provide 24-hour emergency services, and then it was not going to provide 24-hour emergency services. They were going to provide a birthing suite and then they were not going to provide a birthing suite. The fact is that there was absolute confusion. The Palmerston community were not sure what they were going to get.
Under a Country Liberals government, they are going to be very clear about what they are going to get. It is not something that is going to be rushed in. The Country Liberals were always planning on having a hospital that was going to grow with the community, because Palmerston is the fastest-growing city in Australia, so we need to make sure that we are thinking strategically if we are going to provide the best health services for the people of Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area.
I also want to make it very clear that the coalition understand how important it is that we provide very good hospital services and health services to Territorians. We will be doing everything we can to support the new Northern Territory government to make sure that we provide the best opportunities for Territorians to make sure that they are well looked after, not just now, not just short term, but in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. You can be assured that we will be doing it responsibly, not going around spending money willy-nilly like the Labor government did. The $70 million is not at risk. (Time expired)
Layland, Professor Brian, OAM
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:59): Today I rise to acknowledge a great man of optometry, Professor Brian Layland OAM, and the formidable impact that he has had on optometry as an industry but also as a profession in Australia. Brian Layland graduated with an ASTC in optometry in 1953 and completed a bachelor of science degree in 1958. He served as an optometrist in his own practice for 45 years until he took up his current role as director of Aboriginal programs for the Brien Holden Vision Institute.
Brian Layland has had an enormous impact on Australian optometry. He has demonstrated a passion for the profession in developing its expertise; he is also behind most of the major advances that have been made in the profession over his whole time in practice. For more than 50 years now, Brian has had a fierce commitment to advancing eye care in Australia. He showed this fierce commitment in 1972, when together with his colleague Brien Holden he decided, in the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy, to visit and stay in Darwin. They held the view that if there was complete devastation in Darwin they should be there, because people would have lost everything, including their glasses. So they looked after people throughout the whole period of reconstruction. Brian was instrumental in the inclusion of optometry services in the Medicare benefits scheme and the veterans' scheme. The inclusion of optometry in these schemes took him over 22 years to achieve, but he succeeded.
Professor Layland led the call for optometrists to be permitted to use diagnostic drugs, and he was involved in the first optometry courses in Australia to provide accredited education to equip optometrists to do so. He is, as I say, fiercely dedicated to the profession of optometry and to ensuring that it is treated as a profession. Few have made as great an impact on optometry as has Professor Brian Layland. Without doubt optometry in Australia and the lives of many people have been affected in a positive way by his care, his dedication and his efforts to ensure that public health recognises proper diagnostic approaches to eye care.
Professor Layland was awarded the OAM—the Medal of the Order of Australia—for his services to professional optometry and made an honorary life member of the Australian Optometrical Association of New South Wales. He has contributed much in his time, and, together with Professor Brien Holden, he is now overseeing in excess of 111 eye care centres which administer eye care to the Aboriginal population in remote and regional Australia. Professor Layland does not believe in retirement. He will stay actively involved in his profession, particularly in looking after the Aboriginal community.
Another thing I learned about Brian Layland—and I have known him for some considerable time—is that he took it upon himself to deliver services to Western Samoa. He had the rather simple view that, if you can serve someone by adjusting their vision, you can give them back their independence. That view has meant that he has become involved in ensuring that those in less privileged positions than we are in have proper eye treatment and regain their independence. In the Australian context Professor Layland has worked on restorative vision—particularly in the Aboriginal sector—for those who are suffering from trachoma, and his work has been astounding. It was very interesting to hear the other day the leaders of the Aboriginal community praising his efforts as a true and genuine Australian.
I am very privileged and happy to know Brian Layland, but I am even more happy to be able to say that we as a community have gained much from his great efforts and dedication to his profession.
Pensions and Benefits
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (12:04): The Central Coast enjoys a very well deserved reputation as a great place to retire. After spending a working life in Western Sydney, many people choose the more relaxed and scenic surrounds of the peninsula to call their home in their retirement. Because of this, my electorate has 29,600 pensioners, who rely on the Labor government to deliver the best support that they can have in their postwork life. For my locals, all too often, retirement does not mean that they stop working. Many contribute to our local community organisations, return to study at University of the Third Age or look after grandchildren for their own working children. Our surf-lifesaving clubs seem to be a great place of much engagement as well.
Australian pensioners deserve a fair share, to ensure that they are able to live a dignified and fulfilling retirement. When this government came to power five years ago, pensioners were earning $5,382 less than they are today. That is a substantial amount. That is a delivery by a Labor government looking after our pensioners. It is a lot of money for someone who earns an income already; what that means for a pensioner who does not earn an income makes it an even more significant number. This can be a transformative level of extra support for those who are living out their lives on the Central Coast.
Just this week it was announced that the new clean energy supplement, which is part of the Household Assistance Package, will now be paid fortnightly, along with the pension, at a rate of $13.50 per fortnight for singles and $20.40 a fortnight for couples combined. There is not one pensioner that I know who does not want this support. There is not one pensioner I know who does not need a Labor government to ensure they get the support they need.
This Labor government has delivered the single biggest boost to the pension in more than a century. We have changed the indexation system so that the pension goes up more quickly and equitably with the cost-of-living rises, and we have delivered a new seniors work bonus so that age pensioners can keep more of their income from work. We have also made sure that seniors can access public transport concessions when travelling interstate.
However, there is a significant threat to these important and fundamental living impact changes the Labor government have made to ensure that our pensioners have a fair life in their retirement. That threat is the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party, who have promised to claw back every cent of support that Labor are delivering to pensioners under the Household Assistance Package.
When the Leader of the Opposition says he will cut the carbon tax, the first thing that will go is $350 from that pension. Labor gives and supports the pensioners, and the Liberal Party is set to take it away. This means every single pensioner on the coast would lose hundreds of dollars a year under an Abbott government. The Leader of the Opposition will claw back more than $350 from single pensioners and $530 from pensioner couples. Local pensioners absolutely rely on the extra support from the Gillard government. They cannot trust those opposite to provide it.
The impact of this is not only going to be on those individuals who are currently receiving the Household Assistance Package, the clean living package; it is also going to be on the businesses that they support locally. It is not too much for our local pensioners to have a few coins in their wallet, to be able to go to the local Michel's patisserie or the local shop and have a coffee with their friends. It is not too much to expect that, when they want to send a Christmas card or a birthday card to their grandchildren, they can afford to buy a gift card and send that in the mail. It is not too much for our pensioners to expect that there be just a little bit of space, with the income support that we give them, to be able to live the life that everybody who is out there working expects to be able to live—a little bit of breathing space.
What we have with the proposition of a Liberal-National party government is the very first clawing-back. And look who is targeted: those who are on fixed incomes, vulnerable pensioners. The first hand from a federal Liberal government would go straight into the pockets of pensioners, taking $350 out for singles. It is a completely untenable position. (Time expired)
Federation Chamber adjourned 12:09