The SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PRIVILEGE
The SPEAKER (10:01): On 30 May 2013, the Leader of the Nationals raised as a matter of privilege whether the member for New England had abused the privileges of the House in making remarks on 28 May concerning Senator Joyce.
Matters of privilege have been raised regarding the possible misuse of privilege by members making remarks in the House. The judgement in such matters involves a balancing of the right of members to be able to express themselves as they wish and a recognition that the privilege of freedom of speech is very powerful and should be exercised with care by members. This balancing is one largely for the judgement of individual members to make, recognising that anything said in the House will be assessed and judged by the community.
To be pursued as a matter of privilege, by reference to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, there would need to be some prima facie evidence that the references had constituted an improper interference with the work of the House. In my opinion the information provided does not constitute prima facie evidence that a contempt has been committed.
I note that a member of parliament has the opportunity to respond on an equal footing to remarks made about them in the House. I also note that offensive references to senators are not permitted under the standing orders, although no point of order was raised at the time. Private citizens, by means of an application for a right of reply, also are able to respond to remarks they believe have damaged their reputation.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Private Members' Motions
Reference to Federation Chamber
The SPEAKER (10:02): In accordance with standing order 41(g), and the recommendations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Berowra, Werriwa and Dawson. These items will be considered in the Federation Chamber later today.
PETITIONS
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Diabetes
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that type 2 Diabetes incidents is growing in Australia and the average age of sufferers in now becoming younger and younger;
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to ensure the government implements measures to reduce the risk of Australians developing type 2 diabetes and to better manage type 1 and type 2 diabetes, specifically:
Resourcing primary prevention programs focussing on populations, communities and individuals;
Implementing a systematic, national risk assessment aimed at the early identification of those with type 2 diabetes and those likely to develop the disease;
Investing in health programs and public education to improve the detection and early intervention for pre-diabetes and existing diabetes;
implementing programs to prevent progression and complications of both type 1 and type 2 Diabetes; and
Establishing a sustainable program for optimal, individualised diabetes management for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
from 42 citizens
Gippsland Electorate: Television Reception
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of…The People of Churchill in the State of Victoria. Draws to the attention of the House
To the state of television reception in Churchill
We therefore ask the house to: Look into this matter as a matter of urgency We get good reception most of the time, BUT we get NO signal for short periods many times a day.
This is not caused by two aerials as stated by on behalf of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the digital economy. (checked)
from 61 citizens
Visas
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned residents and friends of the village of Metung in East Gippsland draws to the attention of the House: to the inequitable circumstances regarding the temporary residency of and, originally from England, arrived in Australia in November 2007 and settled in Metung, East Gippsland where they purchased, successfully operated and expanded an important local business. They are hard working, financially independent, well liked and through their active community spirit have become an asset to our local community. 's Sister has lived in Brisbane for over forty years and now one of their children has also decided that she would like Australia to be her home and is currently undertaking a second degree at Monash University as an International Student.
They have committed to stay in Metung and are currently in the process of having a new home built.
Whilst they accept the requirements of their Visa subclass 405 in respect of the need for them to be totally self-funded and the continued necessity for full health cover, this visa gives them no permanency of residency.
We therefore ask the House to: do all in its power to grant and the security of permanent residency, rather than the temporary visa they are required to submit for approval every 4 years.
from 158 citizens
Banking
Australia Urgently Needs a Glass-Steagall Separation of Banks
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia draws to the attention of the House the threat facing Australia's banking system from the deepening global financial crisis, which puts at serious risk the bank deposits of the Australian people, and essential banking services for the real economy.
Australia is now vulnerable because our banking system is concentrated in just four banks, which between them hold the overwhelming majority of deposits and provide the majority of banking services, but which have dangerously exposed themselves to shocks in the global financial system, including through nearly $20 trillion in derivatives speculation.
We therefore ask the House to take immediate action to protect deposits and essential commercial banking services, by enacting strict banking separation as did U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Glass-Steagall Act 1933. Glass-Steagall split deposit-taking, standard commercial banks from Wall Streets speculative investment banks, creating entirely separate entities under different roofs, thus successfully protecting the U.S. banking system until Glass-Steagall's repeal in 1999. We ask the House to apply the Glass-Steagall principle to Australia through legislation to divide each of the four major banks into two parts: 1) normal commercial banks as per Glass-Steagall standards, and 2) institutions involved in investment banking and other forms of speculation. Banks that speculate will then do so with their own money and at their own peril, with no government protection whatsoever.
from 501, 137 and 860 citizens
Clinical Trials
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: A Commonwealth Legislative Matter.
We therefore ask the House to:
Make all medicines safe by creating necessary changes to our Laws to mandate that Pharmaceutical Companies document truthful data, especially in regards to the potential risks and dangers pertaining to all medicines. Lack of information can undoubtedly adversely affect patient care. Many leading experts from around the world are very concerned that Pharmaceutical Companies are publishing results of positive clinical trials and are suppressing results of negative clinical trials. The effects of suppressed data are cutting some lives short.
We are all worthy of the highest standards of safety. We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to:
1. Demand legislative changes so that there is transparency and accountability in research.
2. Place truthful and accurate warning labels on all medicines, including the Consumer Information Pamphlet (CPI).
3. To list all risks regarding the dangers of ingesting medicines (not just a selected few).
My mission goal is to create changes which will give consumers reliable and truthful information. Once Laws are changed, we can all be better informed about the risks, instead of leaving anything to chance. Increased transparency of test results, equates to better choices and ultimately safer medicines. The current Laws need to be re-evaluated and reassessed, especially when it comes to people's safety. Thank you to each and every individual who has contributed their time and support to a worthy cause.
from 690 citizens
Asylum Seekers
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
The petition of the undersigned is to show the concern of parishioners of the Parish of St John the Apostle in Kippax, ACT, for the wellbeing of children who are asylum seekers and to ask for action by the House of Representatives to ensure that their living conditions are appropriately organised.
from one citizen
Petitions received.
Responses
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Foreign Aid
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2013 regarding the petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions requesting that 0.5 per cent of Australia's Gross National Income (GNI) be allocated to overseas aid by 2015.
The Australian Government is committed to reaching 0.5 per cent of GNI.
In 2012, the Government took the difficult, but fiscally responsible, decision to defer this commitment until 2016-17. While this will slow the growth of the aid program, aid funding will continue to increase over the next four years.
This financial year, the overseas aid budget will increase to a record $5.2 billion.
The Australian Government recognises that adequate nutrition is vital to ensuring that children grow, learn and become productive members of society. The Government addresses malnutrition in a number of ways. Support is tailored to the needs of individual countries and, where possible, uses a multi-faceted approach. For example, in Timor-Leste Australia is helping to address nutrition by improving health care for women and children, increasing access to clean water and sanitation, and improving food security through increased agricultural productivity.
In 2011-12, Australia spent around 13 per cent, or $643 million, of its aid budget on health programs and around $194 million on water and sanitation programs. As Australia's aid budget increases it is likely that funding to address nutrition issues will also increase.
I trust that this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr
Hasluck Electorate: Radio Station
Dear Mr Murphy
Community Radio Station Petition
Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2013 (reference 742/1187), regarding a submission received by the Standing Committee on Petitions from 'the people and businesses within the City of Swan region of Western Australia'. I note the petitioners seek the assistance of the House to secure a community radio service for the Midland CBD, within the Local Government Area of the City of Swan, including a variation to the Perth Radio Licence Area Plan, as necessary.
You may be interested to know the petition was referred to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for consideration, as under the terms of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ACMA is the independent statutory authority responsible for the planning and allocation of all broadcasting licences. In planning the economic and efficient use of radiofrequency spectrum, the ACMA is to have regard to planning criteria, including demographics and the number of existing broadcasting services in a licence area
(section 23 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992). The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 also provides for the ACMA to determine the number and type of broadcasting services to be available in particular areas of Australia.
The ACMA has advised that it has received applications for temporary community broadcasting licences (TCBL) from two groups seeking to provide temporary community broadcasting services within the City of Swan, including an application from Swan City Community Radio Inc, for a service to cater for the Midland CBD. In January 2013, the ACMA advised both aspirant groups that the 104.1 MHz frequency was suitable for use for temporary community broadcasting purposes in the Swan TCBL RA1 licence area, which encompasses the City of Swan (including Midland). Both aspirant groups have notified the ACMA that they have agreed to share the frequency, with each group broadcasting for 84 hours per week.
It is expected that the communities in the suburb of Midland will be able to access the Swan TCBL RA1 service.
I trust this information will be of use to the Standing Committee on Petitions.
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy
Medical Research Funding
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter on 18 March 2013 regarding a petition calling for the House of Representatives to invest funding for research in to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and its accompanying illness Multi Chemical Sensitivities (MCS).
As you may be aware, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the Australian Government's leading health and medical research funding body. The NHMRC invests in research support through a variety of mechanisms including investigator-initiated research projects, broad programs of research and people support schemes targeted towards supporting health and medical research for the Australian community.
The NHMRC considers approximately 4,000 applications for research funding each year and over 1,000 applications for individual support from the more junior level scholarships to senior level research fellowships each year.
In all cases, the research proposals are initiated by the researchers and not predetermined by the NHMRC. These schemes are highly competitive and undergo rigorous expert peer review. Research focussed on ME/CFS has continued to be well supported by the NHMRC with over $1.2 million invested into this area of research between 2000 and 2012.
You might be interested to know that the NHMRC awarded $500,000 over five years (2008-12) through a Practitioner Fellowship to the University of New South Wales for research into CFS led by Professor Andrew Lloyd. Professor Lloyd has made a substantial contribution to the understanding of CFS, with his work being the first to show the prevalence and variability of CFS, its differentiation from depressive disorders, its validity and reliability as a diagnosis, the heritability of CFS, and the first substantial randomised controlled trial of immune treatments.
For individuals with this complex medical condition, the Government continues to support access to high quality medical care and medicines through subsidies provided under Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which provides funding for services delivered in hospitals and supports good primary health care.
Once again, thank you for writing.
from the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek
Age Pension
Thank you for your letter of 18 March 2013, about a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding increases to the rate of Age Pension and health and age care issues for pensioners.
The Department of Human Services delivers payments and services on behalf of a range of government departments and agencies. The policy and legislation for the rate of Age Pension falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP. The policy relating to health care falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Health, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP. The policy related to aged care falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, the Hon Mark Butler MP.
I have, therefore, referred your correspondence to the offices of Ministers Macklin, Plibersek and Butler for consideration.
Once again, thank you for writing.
from the Minister for Human Services, Senator McLucas
Statements
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:04): Further to last week’s statement, today I will discuss the two public hearings the committee conducted in Sydney and Brisbane with selected principal petitioners and/or their representatives.
Since the inception of the first committee in 2008 the committee has elected to hold roundtable public hearings on a variety of petitions which have met the House's requirements and have subsequently been tabled and, usually, have already been responded to by the executive.
These hearings are conducted to enable a further airing of the petition issue through a public dialogue on the petition, and not to inquire into the matter with a view to resolving, following-up or making recommendations to government on any individual petition concern. This type of activity is beyond the scope of the committee's role.
However, considering that petitioners are aware that the committee is not a body of resolution, it is gratifying to see that petitioners have willingly appeared at these meetings and have gone to much trouble with their pre-preparations. Many of those who have appeared have enthusiastically reported how much they valued simply being able to discuss their petition matter with the committee. And the matter, which is condensed in the petition terms to 250 words, can be elaborated on—and this discussion is a public one.
I am sure that I speak for all members of the committee in endorsing the value of conducting these discussions with principal petitioners and/or their representatives. More often than not the committee comes away from these hearings with a clearer, or new, perspective on an issue. Petitioners may do likewise, even on matters close to their hearts. Sometimes participating in discussions may help petitioners to advance solving a matter for themselves or may simply satisfy their understanding why something is the way it is.
In addition, the full transcripts of the public hearings are published by Hansard and to the committee's website, so these insights and clarifications may be ascertained by interested stakeholders and the general public more broadly. Once the official transcript has been finalised, a copy is sent to the relevant portfolio minister or ministers pertaining to those petitions discussed.
Hearings have also provided the added opportunity for the committee to learn of the reasons petitioners utilised the House's petitioning process to air their concerns, rather than through other mechanisms, and what they thought of the process. And these hearings were no exception.
In Sydney, the committee met with the principal petitioners (or their representatives) of four petitions, on the following matters: calling for the full implementation of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program; requesting various considerations during the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement negotiations; maintaining the current civil aviation standards for flight-crew ratios; and ways in which customers are informed, and give consent for, their financial data being held offshore.
In Brisbane, the committee heard from the petitioners on yet another diverse range of petition matters calling for special award payments for on-the-job risk for truck drivers, seeking an intercountry adoption program between Australia and Burundi, requesting that Australia support the recognition of Palestine as a non-member state of the United Nations, and seeking to have all food which is manufactured using halal processes labelled as such.
The committee was interested to learn of the firsthand experiences of most of the principal petitioners who had prepared petitions. In Sydney, one petitioner spoke of firsthand experience with bowel cancer; another had been made redundant when the service area they worked in moved offshore, whilst another had worked as a flight attendant over many decades of change in the aviation industry.
In Brisbane, one petitioner who was a truck driver with over 20 years experience in the industry told the committee he had witnessed the consequences of serious vehicle accidents, including being injured in three massive, no-fault collisions. Another petitioner and her husband had independently adopted their son from the small African country of Burundi, after many years of trying to adopt through the officially supported intercountry adoption programs. These petitioners came to express their concerns and desires about matters which were not only personally connected to them—in many cases, deeply so—but these people also had expertise in the subject matter.
These petitioners did not just come to the committee with problems. The petitioners had thoroughly researched their concerns—they brought statistics and data and thoughtful suggestions or reasoning. And this is entirely understandable given that the petitions process reinforces this type of thinking.
Petitions to the House must draw to attention an issue of concern; they must set out reasons why there is a problem, and then they must ask the House to take action. Therefore, formulating a petition encourages petitioners to think not only of the problem but of what they would like changed, introduced or resolved.
I thank the House.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10:09): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I present the trade subcommittee's report, entitled Australia's trade and investment relationship with Japan and the Republic of Korea. The committee welcomed the opportunity to examine Australia's relationship with two of our most important trading partners. I will first turn to Japan.
The importance of the Australia-Japan relationship should not be obscured by the rise of other countries. Japan was Australia's number one trading partner for over 40 years, and today remains second only to China. In that time Japan has made a significant contribution to Australia's prosperity, originating with its investment in the resources and energy sector in the 1960s.
Today Japan is Australia's third-largest source of foreign investment, totalling $123.4 billion in 2011. It is also Australia's second-largest market for food and agricultural products, with safe, high-quality food and reliable supply from Australia making a significant contribution to Japan's food security. On the other side of the ledger Japan is Australia's third-largest source of imports, with products such as cars and manufactured goods in high demand by Australian consumers.
Today Japan is moving toward trade liberalisation and agricultural reform, including negotiating a free-trade agreement with Australia. This agreement is a significant milestone: Japan's first with one of its top six trading partners, and first with a major developed economy.
The committee strongly supports the FTA, or free-trade agreement, negotiations. The services sector is one area expected to benefit from the FTA. Education and tourism are two of Australia's most important services exports. The committee supports efforts to attract more visitors and international students to Australia. The committee heard that Australia's particular expertise in financial services is being increasingly recognised in Japan, a country with the world's second-largest pool of investable wealth. Both countries' expertise is also being capitalised upon in investment projects, and in particular through joint ventures in third countries.
The committee has recommended that the government showcase the marketing of Meat and Livestock Australia in its export facilitation activities. In the committee's view, approaches like that of MLA's 'Aussie Beef' promotion can reduce competition between individual Australian brands, improve customer awareness and tap into Japanese perceptions of Australian food as safe, high-quality products.
I turn now to the Republic of Korea. Korea is Australia's fourth-largest trading partner, and a country with which Australia shares a longstanding and complementary relationship. After the Korean War, Australian exports of raw materials supported Korea's industrial development from the 1960s onwards. Indeed, energy, minerals and metals exports continue to be the bedrock of the ongoing relationship.
The committee heard about significant growth in Korean investment to secure Korea's ongoing energy needs. Korean companies are taking increasingly large stakes in a number of Australian resources projects. With 70 per cent of its food needs met from imports, Australia also has an important role to play in Korea's food security—providing safe, high-quality food to our fifth-largest agricultural export market. In turn, Australia continues to demand Korea's consumer products, including cars, electronics and refined fuels.
Korea's active free-trade agreement schedule, including negotiations with Australia, occupied a central role in our inquiry. With Korea's FTAs in force with the United States and European Union, the committee was concerned about the implications of ongoing delays in concluding our own agreement. Considerable attention has been given to the implications for Australia's beef exports to Korea, our third-largest beef export market, as well as other outstanding issues, such as investor-state dispute settlement. I thank the trade subcommittee, and particularly my deputy chair, the honourable member for Maranoa—can I get an extension, Speaker?
The SPEAKER: No.
Ms SAFFIN: That is a shame.
The SPEAKER: That is a shame. I am terribly sorry.
Mr Bruce Scott: I want to give her an extension of time; she is saying something nice about me.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (10:15): I rise with pleasure to support the tabling of our report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the trade and investment relationship with Japan and Korea. I say to the chair, the member for Page, that I think one of the great things we had on the committee was that we all looked in all our hearings to get the right outcome without looking at politics. It was about what is the right thing for Australia. There was wonderful camaraderie throughout what had been a very long process. It underpins the importance that the committee places on our trade relationship with two very important trading partners, Japan and Korea.
Japan has been our No. 1 export destination for almost 40 years and it will remain a very important country to Australia. Whilst we do not have a free trade agreement with it yet, I am hopeful that negotiations continue, even in the lead-up to this federal election. It must continue because it is important to both countries. I am concerned that perhaps it may get lost in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations that are occurring between other countries in that partnership, but I want to put Australia's interests and Japan's interests ahead of those others. From Australia's point of view, Japan is a very significant investor in Australia—I think our third largest investor. That remains important to us and also to Japan. In relation to the beef industry, it has long been our No. 1 or No. 2 destination for Australian beef. Coming from the electorate that I do and coming from Queensland, whose second largest export commodity is beef, I say that we must continue to make sure that we do all we can to negotiate an agreement that is complementary to our beef industry. One of the things I found and I am sure the committee found while we were in Japan was the importance they place on our food, be it beef or other products, and our clean, green image. That is a trading asset that we have and that we must always protect.
I also thank the embassy staff in Japan and the consuls-general that we met as we took evidence across Japan. I want to thank those companies and their very senior people who attended those hearings for the very comprehensive evidence they gave us. I want to touch on a program called the JET program, those students from Australia who go to Japan and live in a community. They are an inspiration to me and I thought: what a wonderful way to continue to build that relationship that goes beyond the high levels that we were exposed to. Those students were an inspiration to us and also great ambassadors in a wonderful program taking Australian students into Japanese communities with their language skills to broaden the Japanese speaking skills for those Australians who also to take English language skills into Japan.
On Korea, I have been very impressed by Korea's growth. As a former veterans' affairs minister I have observed Korea's growth over a long time since the Korean War. After the Korean War it was MacArthur who said that Korea will always need foreign aid. In 60 years they have transformed that economy from an economy that was an aid recipient to an aid donor, which underpins how that country has grown and become such an important part of the trading scene globally.
I want to touch very quickly in the limited time that I have—because I know I will not be given additional time—on the chair talking about the investor-state dispute in relation to the Korean free-trade negotiations. It is, I think, one of those elements holding up the finalisation of that agreement. I note the government's position, which is stated in the report, and I just want to say for the benefit of the Hansard that the committee also notes some important words from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for trade, the Hon. Julie Bishop. These are the important words that I want to reflect on in these few moments left: 'The coalition would, as a matter of course, put ISDS clauses on the negotiating table and then negotiate the …'— (Time expired)
BILLS
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 [No. 2]
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:20): The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertisements for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 is a timely and necessary intervention that is aimed at limiting harm to children and preserving the place of sport in Australian life. There has been much talk in recent times about gambling ads and betting ads during sports, but there has been precious little action. The Greens began the parliamentary debate earlier this year on this issue with our Senate inquiry. In the absence of action, the Greens will take the lead. This bill will ensure that children are able to watch sports on Saturday and Sunday afternoons with their parents and not be exposed to gambling ads.
Australians love sport. Sport is indeed at the centre of our culture. Organised sport is one of the primary ways we entertain ourselves, spend time with family and build community. It is an inherently healthy pursuit and one easily shared with friends and family of all ages. From playing backyard cricket to packing the stands of the MCG for the AFL Grand Final, many of us are passionate about our sport and make it part of our daily lives. We also make sport a priority in public policy. The Commonwealth spends over $170 million each year on elite sports through the Australian Institute of Sport, and Australia is famous around the world as a sporting nation. Despite being a small country we are consistently near the top of the Olympic medal tally.
Because Australians love sport so passionately, it is big business. Our major sporting codes such as Australian Rules football and rugby league have billion-dollar television deals. Huge sums are involved in the sponsorship of these events. In recent times, the involvement of gambling companies in sports sponsorship has increased. It is now virtually impossible to watch major sports without being subjected to multiple exhortations to bet on the outcome, either during the advertising breaks or, increasingly, by commentators during the event itself. The statistics reinforce the size and scope of the problem. Online betting, of which sports betting is a major component, has risen from $2.4 billion in 2007 to almost $10 billion in 2012. It is estimated that billions more are wagered by Australians on unregulated, offshore websites.
Having a bet is also part of Australian culture and betting on sport is an enjoyable activity for many people. For some, who become problem gamblers, it can be incredibly destructive. Because of this potential for harm, there are serious questions to be answered about just how much Australians want gambling to be part of sport. Somewhere, the line must to be drawn between a benign, family-friendly activity and one that is inextricably linked to gambling, such as horse racing.
In recent years this line has been crossed more and more frequently. It has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to avoid repeated exposure to betting advertisements and gambling odds when watching any major sporting event. The number of sports betting ads on free-to-air TV quadrupled in the last two years. In 2012 there were 528 individual ads, collectively broadcast more than 20,000 times. There has also been a blurring of the line between commentary and advertising when it comes to gambling. The recent inclusion of a prominent bookmaker as part of the rugby league coverage has caused concern for many.
This growing nexus between sports and gambling companies has not gone unnoticed by the Australian public. The saturation advertising has come to irritate many people who love sport and worry about the corrosive impact it might have on the game. In particular, they are concerned about the impact on children.
A recent inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform has heard disturbing evidence into the problem. Academic researchers have recounted how children are now able to name an average of two or three sports betting firms simply by virtue of watching sport. Anecdotally, young children are discussing the odds of their favourite teams winning a match. Given the strictly adult nature of the product, many people are concerned about this overexposure of children and the way in which it may be normalising the connection between gambling and sport for them.
The potential for harm is obvious, and problem gambling already costs individuals and the community dearly. Where there are obvious harms, there is a need to regulate. How best to do so can be a difficult question when the activity involved is legal and, for many, both safe and enjoyable. However, an unregulated market is not appropriate where the product has such a high potential for harm. It is true that this is a problem the industry could solve itself without government intervention. In fact, the government in 2011 gave the industry an ultimatum with regard to the promotion of live odds, threatening regulation if the industry did not do something to curb the practice. The response by television and radio broadcasters has been change to their codes of conduct that places some limitations on the promotion of odds. These codes still allow promotion during scheduled breaks, and under this code the current situation where a bookmaker appears during editorial segments discussing gambling would not be prohibited.
There has been a recent reiteration of the threat from the Prime Minister, but even if action were taken—and we have not yet seen anything from the gambling industry to suggest that any legally binding rules will be in place before this parliament rises—it would still be possible during the quarter-time or half-time breaks when you are watching football with your kids on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon for gambling ads to pop up.
The problem has escalated to the point where there is real potential for harm to children, setting them up as a new generation of problem gamblers. Industry self-regulation has failed to properly limit this harm. Under these circumstances, and given the level of disquiet in the community, it is appropriate and timely for parliament to step in and regulate this area.
This bill takes some modest steps to limit the harms of gambling advertising. That children should be protected from overexposure to gambling advertisements is incontestable. The bill puts restrictions on commercial radio and television broadcast licensees that limit their ability to broadcast advertisements for gambling services in a way likely to be consumed by children.
Firstly, the bill prevents the advertising or discussion of live odds at any time. Children and adults will no longer be exposed to a constant barrage of changing numbers as the game progresses, or the most intrusive inducements to bet in the lead-up to the game.
Secondly, the bill prevents any advertisements for gambling services before 9 pm at night. Although the broadcasters comply with a code that prevents the advertising of these services during children's viewing hours, they have left a loophole for sports broadcasts. But sports programs are among the most popular shows viewed by children. We would not tolerate the advertising of harmful products like gambling during Saturday morning cartoons. Yet for a sporting event being broadcast at the same time, with as many child viewers, there is no restriction. This bill closes that loophole once and for all.
Thirdly, the bill puts an end to so-called 'cash for comment', perhaps the most intrusive way that gambling has intruded into team sport. Under these provisions of the bill, licensees would not be allowed to accept payment for the promotion of gambling services by commentators on a sports broadcast or their guests. It would prevent such situations we have seen developing recently where bookmakers join the commentary team, or where commentators slip references to odds or gambling services into their remarks about the game.
In addition to now putting into law something that should be a law that is not appropriate for self-regulation, unlike the other proposals that have been circulated this bill would encompass those others for shows such as the footy show that can run summer up to half an hour before the game and still be promoting live betting. Also under this bill, unlike the government proposal, it would not be possible to cross to an online bookmaker during the scheduled quarter-time or half-time breaks.
The time has come for the parliament to take action on this issue. Along with legislation to restrict the promotion of odds during a sports broadcast by commentators and bookmakers alike, we also need to close the loophole that allows gambling advertisements during kids' viewing times. While gambling advertising is banned in programs that are likely to have a substantial child audience, an exception is still made for sports. A simple change preventing gambling advertisements before 9 pm is a simple, common-sense solution.
The Greens are pleased to have led the legislative campaign to protect children and to protect sport. This bill has been introduced into the Senate and I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Australian Ownership Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:30): The Australian Ownership Bill 2013 limits foreign investment in Australian business and agricultural land. Unashamedly protecting our agricultural and food security, the bill prevents a foreign person or body corporate from holding ownership interests and more than 49 per cent of an Australian agribusiness or a parcel of Australian land of four hectares or greater.
The bill aims to protect the future of Australians' food security and redress the sell-off of Australia overseas. This bill also recognises that in limited circumstances foreign investment is necessary to provide our farmers and producers with the only exit possible from many years of unfair prices or to open new markets and provide new technology or finance. If the foreign person or body can demonstrate that the acquisition will provide substantial benefit, and I emphasise substantial benefit, to the nation and is in the national interest—for example, by the opening of new markets, by providing for financial betterment of all Australians or by providing for either or both technological advancement and major capital investment—then that exception may prevail.
In saying these things, it amazes me that there does not seem to be in this place the slightest scintilla of nationalism. There is no thought that we should ask ourselves: do we want our country to be owned by foreigners so that Australians become some sort of serf working for a foreign landlord? With the Liberal Party looking very likely to become the government of Australia in a deregulated labour market, we would be serfs working for foreign landlords for increasingly less money each year as our pay and conditions are undermined—back to where they were a hundred years ago, before we had a regulated labour market.
There has been talk, continuously, and it is very good as far as I am concerned that the talk is less about carbon and less about the horror of the Murray-Darling somehow drying up and more about food security. Members of this parliament have heard me many times on this issue. Suffice it to say that Australians are net importers of fruit and vegetables, net importers of seafood—in fact, fairly massive net importers of seafood now—and net importers of pork. I am told that with apples, if we include apple product, there is more product coming in from China than there is produced in Australia.
If you have a look at the graph of the growth of prawn and fish production in China then you could argue that within 40 or 50 years all the world's protein will come from China. I had better not without his permission mention his name, but the leading fruit and vegetable wholesaler in Australia told me that unless we get bumblebees we will be a net importer of tomatoes from China. I would think we would be close to being a net importer of peanuts, for example, from China.
So the people lacking any interest in research, lacking any interest in a bigger picture, lacking any interest in anything except holding on to their seats in three months time, have failed in any way to come to grips with the situation in which your country in three years time will be a net importer of food. That is the definition of food leaving out grain and live cattle. You cannot eat live cattle and you cannot eat grain. You can eat flour or you can eat processed meat but you cannot eat an ox. If you put those back in, it is probably in about eight or nine years that we will become a net importer of food. Either way, I have heard time after time in this place people get up and seriously talk about how we are going to be the food bowl of Asia. For heaven's sake, will you realise that you will be the begging bowl of Asia? You will not be the food bowl, you will be the begging bowl. You are living in a country that will not be able to feed itself within three to nine years time. You are living in a country that will not be able to feed itself, and the morality of continuing down this pathway is to me extremely dubious; the morality of our situation is extremely dubious.
I sit under the two greatest man in Australian political history by a long way: the famous Red Ted Theodore and Jack McEwen. Both those men said again and again that unless we develop this country we will not be able to hold on to it. People in this parliament come from giant cities and have most peculiar attitudes, such as that we have too many people. That is a view that you could see maybe in inner Melbourne or inner Sydney, but if you walked 100 kilometres outside of either of those cities and went across the rest of Australia to the sea in Western Australia you would not see anybody. There is nobody living there. Take out a narrow 100-kilometre coastal belt from Adelaide to Cairns through Sydney and Melbourne and a little dot around Perth, the country is populated by less than a million people. If ever there is a truism of history, it is that a land without people shall be populated by a people without land. If you think I am exaggerating, read Mr Hitler's book called Mein Kampf. It is excellent reading in the sense that living room is on every third page of the book. Have a look at the little black book that was handed out to Japanese troops as they swarmed south and that is exactly the same message. It is about the land and owning the productive resources.
I must digress on that in the little bit of time that is left to me. There are 23 licensed wheat exporters operating in Australia today that are foreign-owned. These exporters have invested in grain handling capacity. Under the sale of GrainCorp the situation is not quite as clear as I would like it to be, but it would appear to me that almost all of your grain handling facilities—your silos, your storage, your rolling stock and your port facilities—are now foreign-owned, and foreign-owned by a single corporation. Our forebears spent their entire lives fighting to get single-desk sellers in this industry so they could get a fair go and a decent return. But what this parliament, on both sides, has done is sell that single-desk seller to a single foreign entity!
With the single entity in the case of sugar mills, you can only have a monopoly. You cannot put it in the back of a truck and send it up the road to the next mill. Heavens! It is only worth $40 a tonne, so you simply cannot afford to do that. And sugar deteriorates very rapidly. So you have a monopoly position you have imposed upon every sugarcane farmer in this country—a monopoly position—because almost all the sugar mills are foreign owned, except for Mackay and the very small industry in New South Wales. All the rest of the 28 mills are owned by foreigners. Sixteen years ago they were all owned by Australians.
Prior to dairy deregulation—another clever initiative of this parliament; and if Madigan spat hatred, then I cannot blame him because I would feel the same way—in the year 2000, both sides of this parliament sold off the dairy industry in exactly the same— (Time expired)
Bill read a first time.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Penalty Rates
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the reliance of many families and individuals across our community on penalty rates as a key component of their income, particularly our lowest-paid workers;
(2) acknowledges that work-life balance is important to the health and welfare of workers, families and our community;
(3) recognises that penalty rates often compensate workers for time they may otherwise spend with family; and
(4) opposes measures that would remove or undermine penalty rates, 10:41:19 AM—
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:41): I am pleased to rise to stand on this important motion. I know that everyone on this side of the chamber believes that Australian workers should be able to lead a decent life, sustained by a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and to have working conditions that allow for the building of a life with family and friends: to plan your finances, to spend time together and to build the things that matter in a good life—health, financial security, family and friends. The motion before the House reminds us of what a working life supports: that balance between home and work that allows for the formation of those family units—whatever they look like—and community networks that form the basis of a cohesive society.
When you work unusual and changing hours, a price is paid in lost time with family and friends, and penalty rates are one way that the price is shared between the worker, who pays the price, and business and consumers who benefit from it. Penalty rates are something that for over 100 years we recognised should apply in jobs and workplaces. They share that price out so it is not just paid by the worker. They have been examined, inquired into, tested by economists, argued about, negotiated, measured by statisticians, arbitrated by tribunals and so on for longer than taxation has existed in this country. Opposition to these rates is as perennial as the argument to support them.
I have a very pragmatic view. I believe that penalty rates are a genuine reflection of what Australian society expects as compensation for people who have to work at times when others are not expected to. We know that historically the opposition has not been a strong supporter of penalty rates. We have seen what they did with Work Choices, we have well and truly seen the ripping away of overtime and penalty rates and we have heard statements from the opposition since that time that they would go down that path again. I acknowledge that they are backing away a little in their rhetoric at the moment, but one can always expect them to revert to type.
If they did that—if they were in government again and did that—they would remove between nine and 11 per cent of the weekly take-home wages of people working in the accommodation and food sectors in my electorate. Similarly, they would reduce about seven per cent of the weekly take-home pay for people working in the retail sector. Of those people working in hospitality, 72 per cent are low-paid workers who work on weekends and on shifts, and in the food and accommodation industries it is 56 per cent—all heavily reliant on penalty rates for their family budgets. And I would have to say that there is not a lot of fat in those family budgets.
I read the economic data—the ABS figures and so on—and I have seen the analysis of costs and the share of wages and profits in those industries, and there is simply not a case to remove penalty rates. Employment has grown in these sectors, and the highest growth has been in small business. For six years, the net price of labour in those industries has risen by a mere 0.8 per cent, whereas income and expenditure on other items for small business in these sectors has risen from anything between eight and 25 per cent. Gross wages, including penalty rates, have not been a problem, but the loss of those penalty rates would be a major problem.
I have doorknocked tens of thousands of houses in my electorate—over 70,000 in total—but redistribution has moved about 40,000 of them into a neighbouring electorate. At least 30,000 of those houses are in my electorate, so I have a very good idea about the everyday lives of those people. I wonder at the thinking of those who would even consider the wiping out of penalty rates. How do they think the typical hospitality and retail and food service worker are going to get by if they lose up to 11 per cent of their weekly wage? If their children are at school from Monday to Friday, where is their weekend child care when they are working weekend shifts and how much does it cost? Where is their weekend or late-night public transport? When and where do they get quality time with their family and friends? What are irregular hours of shiftwork doing to their health and control of their lives?
These are real-life questions about the type of life the typical worker would have to face if penalty rates were lost and these are questions that we, as parliamentarians, must be mindful of. It does not need much spelling out: the removal of penalty rates would be a tragedy for many of the families and workers in my electorate, and I commend the resolution to the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:46): The member for Parramatta just spoke about there being not a lot of room in family budgets and I am sure, having doorknocked 70,000 homes in her electorate, she has been told that time and again. The reason there is not a lot of room in family budgets in this day and age is that day-to-day costs of living have been forced up and up and up, because of the policies brought down by this federal Labor government.
We heard in last year's budget speech by the Treasurer in the very first paragraph 'the four years of surpluses I announced tonight' and he went on. We all know that that is now no longer the case—more like four years of deficits. In this year's budget speech, the Treasurer referred in his second sentence 'to support jobs and growth in an uncertain world' as he talked about the need to consolidate the economy. Under his vision he thinks that jobs and growth are necessary, and he would get no disagreement from this side of politics. If we are lucky enough to form government, we will go about it. We will be far removed from the way he has gone about it in his years as Treasurer—because he has done nothing but produce debt and deficit. In the last two budgets the introductory remarks by the Treasurer belonged more in the fiction than the nonfiction section.
The Fair Work Commission is the industrial umpire with responsibility to make and vary modern awards—something which will continue under a coalition government. It is vital that the Fair Work Commission look objectively at these matters and reach a balance between the needs of workers, their employers and, most importantly, the national interest. Governments of all colours and creeds have conventionally made submissions in significant cases before that umpire, and it is something that will continue, as it has in the past, irrespective of the result of the 14 September election. If anything, under Labor, the government's intervention has been called out as being too one-sided, leading to the High Court criticising the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations as meddling in an education union case as being 'not that of an intervener, but that of a partisan'.
The interaction between labour costs and job growth is something that the Fair Work Commission is required to consider under Labor's laws but, even the member for Batman, in his former capacity as the Minister for Tourism, publicly observed that penalty rates were a major obstacle for the industry in these difficult times, when he said:
I hope the bench of Fair Work Australia has given proper regard to the input of the tourism industry in this context because I understand that is the key issue to industry at this point in time.
This is about fairness and sustainability and, as the Treasurer noted, talking about supporting jobs and growth, you cannot have a job if the employer shuts the shop because the cost for that particular business owner are too high. Onerous workplace conditions impose great burdens on businesses, particularly in regional Australia.
Small towns have beautified their streetscapes, thanks to considerable investment by local councils, and they encourage weekend visitors, but, the way we are going, it is getting harder and harder to get a cup of coffee or a meal on a Saturday or Sunday or indeed a weekday night because of onerous workplace wages and conditions forcing the owners to work seven days and seven nights a week rather than employing people as they would have done in the past. If they go down that path, they are going to be working many, many hours. Their families miss out—because a lot of them have children—but, if they employ people and have to pay the higher and higher penalty rates, they simply cannot make a profit. Therefore what is the point of working for so many hours and paying the higher electricity bills due to the carbon tax and higher fuel costs—depending what business they own—due to the carbon tax, with all the other burdens that are being forced on them and prices which are going up and up under this Labor government?
This is about jobs and growth, and certainly nothing this government has done has ever helped those two important aspects of the economy: jobs and growth. We need to be very mindful of this particular resolution because what we need is fairness and equity and businesses to stay open. (Time expired)
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (10:51): Whilst the actual resolution deals with penalty rates, the previous speaker had recourse to significant bombast and rhetoric about the state of the overall economy. Therefore it is necessary to put on the public record a few realities. In fact, unemployment in this country, for instance, at 5.6 per cent, is strongly at variance with the Europe-wide average of 12 per cent and the United States rate of 7.6. He talked about inflation in this country and the pressures that is creating. He did not seem too concerned when the rate of inflation under the Howard government was 6.75 per cent, in contrast to the 2.75 per cent today. He did not say that the economy is 13 times larger than it was overall when this government came to power. He did not refer to the reality that the overall tax impost in this country is 22.2 per cent of GDP, as opposed to 24 per cent under Howard. Those are a few realities out there.
But the main axiom he came against was the question of the carbon tax, trying to somehow imply that the thing that really does affect people in this country, energy cost increases, is something overwhelmingly to do with the carbon tax. The fact of political life, the truth, is that the reason that energy prices are moving significantly in this country is that state governments, Labor and Liberal, disregarded the need to build infrastructure for decades, pretending to the Australian people that cheap energy could occur forever. Unfortunately, it has come home to roost. Infrastructure has to be renewed, it has to be replaced, and it is costing people a significant amount of money these days.
But the resolution before us today deals with the question of penalty rates. When I go to the Liverpool Titans football games or go to the South-West Sydney Tigers Aussie rules or the Campbelltown City rugby league games, I see a reality of this society: people working on weekends to keep society going, to keep the community having the option for people to play sports. When I go to the Country Women's Association, I see organisations that are struggling. In regard to RSL service organisations, Rotary and Lions around this country, we all know the truth that they are struggling because people have no confidence that each week they will be available, that they will be able to be there, that they will not be on call 24 hours a day for work and that they will not be required to work every weekend. That is a reality.
Penalty rates are about compensating people for the loss of family life, the fact that they cannot be with their children going to sport on Saturdays and Sundays, that they cannot be sure that they can do those sidelines, that they cannot be referees and umpires and people on the grounds, that they cannot help the ethnic school on the weekend at the local public school, that they cannot be involved in community radio because of the impact of the workforce changes in this country. That is what penalty rates are about. They are about compensating people for the loss of family life, for the loss of networks with their friends, their community, their society, their suburb.
And for those opposite, quite frankly, despite the attempt to be a small target before the next election, to pretend that nothing is going to change, the reality is as we have seen in Queensland. They came to power against an unpopular government that people wanted to throw out, and, once again, they were a small target; nothing was going to change, but we have seen in Queensland very significant attacks on society by the new state government. In New South Wales we have seen significant attacks upon the Public Service and also on workers compensation.
Of course, despite the fact that they are trying to pretend that not much is going to change—'We're going to be the same as Labor on industrial relations; don't worry'—the employers and the big end of town know what the reality is. We have seen it from two industries that the previous government speaker spoke about: the retail sector and the hospitality sector. These are places where there are very low-paid workers, earning a lot less than the people opposite who will be speaking in support of, basically, attacking penalty rates. Those people desperately need these penalty rates not only to compensate them for their loss of lifestyle but also to actually live. We have seen those industries come out in the last few weeks, after the opposition leader's budget reply, and they have said: 'We can see a way through. Even though you're saying that your industrial relations policy is not much at variance with the current government, we are sure that we can use your measures to attack penalty rates.' We know, of course, that the hospitality industry have joined retailers in enthusiastically embracing Tony Abbott's proposed workplace changes as a mechanism to extend trading hours without penalty rates. So what we see there is that despite Tony Abbott saying, 'Look, I love John Howard but I disagree with him so greatly in industrial relations. I found it hard to sit in the cabinet room. I was so opposed to my hero's moves on industrial relations. I won't resign; I'll be part of it'— (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:56): It is just lucky I am prepared today, because we have one Labor speaker followed by another Labor speaker because the other side of the House, sadly, have not shown up for the debate. But I guess that is something we have come to expect on this. It used to be that they were like dragons. They were like monsters with Work Choices. We could not keep them under control, could we? In 2007 they were all for cutting penalty rates and people's job security. They were all for getting out there and giving the employer 100 per cent of what they wanted. But, of course, now they have gone completely silent. The proof is that, here in the chamber today, they do not even show up for the debate.
We know what happened under Work Choices, and I saw it first under the Reith legislation and then under the Work Choices legislation. It was a slow progression in the destruction of people's penalty rate clauses under awards, and the trade-off for that was sometimes pay rises in the order of 1c an hour. That was the trade-off: give up all your penalty rates for 1c an hour—hardly fair.
People in this building talk about cost of living. On both sides people talk about cost of living, and it is always an issue in the minds of our constituents. But, of course, the best defence against the cost of living is growing wages and a decent pay packet. We know that many people in retail, in hospitality and in cleaning who work unsociable hours do so to get the penalty rate. They work those unsocial hours so that they can pay the bills and keep up with the cost of living. We know how critically important penalty rates and growing wages are to that process of coping with the cost of living. Indeed, it is the only way of coping with the cost of living, because, sadly, we know that inflation is a fact of life.
We know that penalty rates are important to protecting people's community life. My state of South Australia is one of two places in the world to protect Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. That was put in this year in a deal between unions and business. They came to the state government and said, 'We want to make sure that these two days are protected for community life,' and in exchange there were some trade-offs to work on public holidays for the retail industry. It was a very innovative and cooperative approach and the sort of approach that we would seek with business—that is, sensibly protecting community life while making sure we have a productive economy. The two things can be done at the same time. It is not the either-or proposition that is put by those opposite.
We know that so many people struggle with work-life balance. It is certainly a challenge for anybody in politics, but it is also a challenge for fly-in fly-out workers, for people in the defence community and for anybody who has to travel for work, such as truck drivers and people in transport and storage. Anybody who works antisocial hours struggles, I think, with the challenges of work-life balance. Sometimes that is spending time with your partner, or your wife or husband; sometimes that is, very importantly, spending time with children; sometimes that is spending time in the community, at the footy game, with your mates. I think a critical aspect of people's holistic lives is that we do not just spend time at work. Australians are some of the hardest working people on the face of the planet, but we want to make sure that we have the best community life as well.
There is a whole army of Liberals in the chamber now, lined up to tell us what their plans are, but we basically know what their plans are. They will go after the unions and, once they have finished with the unions, they will go after workers' wages. They will not be so, I guess, honest this time and say, 'We're going to take away your penalty rates.' What they will do this time is they will not say a word, they will just come for them in the dead of night and slowly but surely, using that cutting approach, whittle away all the things that have made this country fair, made this country decent and protected it, and protected working people in the process. (Time expired)
Ms LEY (Farrer) (11:01): It gives me pleasure to speak on this private member's motion about penalty rates. People listening to the debate might imagine that it is us as parliamentarians that are deciding right here, right now, what the penalty rates of Australia workers should be; that it is the subjective judgement that we bring to this chamber, the discussion that we are having, the poor quality example that we just heard from the member opposite. But, in fact, there is a body entirely established for this purpose, thankfully, that does not rely on the contributions of members of the government. I want to remind those members, including the member who brought this motion to the House, that it is the Fair Work Commission, as the independent umpire, that has the responsibility for reviewing all modern awards. This process is actually well underway, in line with the requirements in the Fair Work Act 2009 that a review be undertaken two years after the commencement of modern awards.
The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Shorten, has indicated, however, that the government will not tolerate any reduction in penalty rates, in essence telling the Fair Work Commission that their review must not recommend any reduction to penalty rates, even though we have spotted some dissension in the ranks, with the then tourism minister, the member for Batman, identifying that penalty rates were the bane of the hospitality sector—and we all know this is the truth—acknowledging that penalty rates could well force companies out of business. So we understand there is a balance and we have to find the right balance, but this is the task that the Fair Work Commission has been entrusted with. It is actually their job to consider the cases that are put them and find that happy medium. The government, in turn, should accept the decision of the Fair Work Commission.
We should bear in mind that the Fair Work Commission was a Labor creation. The membership is heavily dotted with former union officials. Those opposite still want to intervene and still want to manipulate the outcome, rather than saying to the Fair Work Commission: 'Examine the landscape in which we are all living, the economic environment that exists in Australia at the moment, the circumstances of businesses, the arguments of business, the arguments of employers, the arguments of unions, the arguments of the workforce, the arguments that come to light in here and in state parliaments and then make an informed decision, and we would then trust that outcome.' No, the minister has already stepped in and said: 'Do all those things, but don't do this.' I do not know why the government does not trust its own creation the Fair Work Commission.
We want to see a fair and balanced system. To this end, if we are elected in September, we have outlined our plan to build a strong and prosperous economy. Under our policy no Australian worker will be worse off and businesses will be supported to grow, contributing more jobs and revenue to the economy. Our plan will see the creation of a million new jobs within five years and two million within 10 years. We will offer real hope to unemployed Australians, helping them realise their dreams of paid employment.
The government is resorting to tired old class-warfare rhetoric—really tired, really outdated, really irrelevant. What the government should be debating is how to reduce unemployment, forecast to rise, and how to decrease welfare dependency in a country with an unacceptably high number of intergenerational unemployed young people, in a country where we cannot seem to get a policy that gets youths into a job. In every part of Australia, youth unemployment is between 20 and 45 per cent.
This is what we should be talking about today. We should be considering how we will give Australians a brighter future and an opportunity for meaningful jobs, and how we will reward them for their hard work. Instead, we are debating something that is clearly the responsibility of the Fair Work Commission to determine. I am disappointed that members of the government cannot come to an agreement on the role of the bodies that they themselves established.
We have to be so very careful that we do not lock out a group of Australian workers who are currently unemployed, losing their jobs and slipping out of the workforce disappointed and disengaged. We have to be careful that we do not create a system that looks after—fantastically well—those who have a job but does not acknowledge those who do not and does not provide a pathway for those outside the labour system to have a real chance in the real economy. That is what we have to be really careful of.
We have said we are happy with the Fair Work Commission. We just would like the minister to stop interfering with the process of that independent quasi-judiciary body and let it do its job.
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (11:06): I rise in support of the motion by the member for La Trobe and note the importance of penalty rates to ensure that many of the poorest workers in our society are able to make a living. We know the significance of penalty rates for part-time workers, students and young people trying to get a start in life. We know that those penalty rates are about compensating people for working at times that are outside the norm. It is fair to say that the norm, for some industries, has changed dramatically over the years, but if you expect people to work at night, on weekends and on public holidays there is a penalty you pay in terms of your living standards, the time you have to enjoy leisure activities and the time you have with your family. This is something that needs to be taken into account.
I have noted from this present debate, and the one in October last year when this motion was first debated, that the view from the other side is very much of two or three clear points. There is the question of flexibility and the need for flexibility from a business point of view to ensure that jobs can be created, workers can be employed and businesses can make a profit. Obviously, that is an important consideration—if there are no jobs there will be no workers. It is a very simple point. The point also is not what it says but what it hides—what it really means and has meant under those opposite.
The opposition leader is of the view 'You cannot believe what I say unless I write it down', and we found out last week you cannot even believe it then. When we go to some of the things that he has written down on workplace reform, we know that his record is very different to his rhetoric today and to the policy that the coalition is taking forth to the next election. We know that under Work Choices—and they now say that is not what they are about—that is not what happened.
We need to go back to Work Choices to understand what the Liberal Party has done. We saw agreement after agreement that was against the workers' needs and established conditions. One hundred per cent of AWAs cut at least one so-called protected award condition: 64 per cent cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, 52 per cent cut the shift-work loadings, 51 per cent cut overtime loadings, 48 per cent cut monetary allowances, 46 per cent cut public holiday pay, 40 per cent cut rest breaks, 36 per cent cut declared public holidays and 22 per cent provided employees with no pay rise, some for up to five years.
The Australian public needs to understand that that is the record of the coalition, and as much as they may try to move away from it, as much as they may say, 'That's not what we are about now,' that is, in fact, what they have been about, and when they had control of both houses of parliament that is what they did.
In terms of the walking away from it: let us go to the very words of the opposition leader with respect to this. In 2008 the opposition leader said about Work Choices:
… it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let’s never forget that.
In 2009 he said that workplace reform was one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government. And in his book, Battlelines, in writing his policy manifesto Tony Abbott, 'Work Choices wasn't all bad'.
The fact is that quite a bit of it was. One of the interesting points is the difficulty we have on the other side to get speakers even to address these issues. I note the member for Farrer, who spoke previously—this is her second contribution to this debate. The member for McPherson spoke twice in October. They are not even interested in debating the issues; they are not prepared to. That is what is wrong with this motion when it comes to the— (Time expired)
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (11:11): I am certainly pleased to rise to speak to this penalty rates motion because, in many respects, like most things that Labor does this penalty rates motion looks great in the headlines but the stark reality for Australian workers is very different.
On the Gold Coast, in my electorate—an electorate built off the backs of hospitality workers, of which there are around 500,000 across Australia—we know that Labor like to herald the fact that they claim their legislation is great for Aussie workers. We see the Prime Minister and we see Bill Shorten consistently saying that they are all about Australian workers. In my city, Australia's sixth-largest city—a city where the single biggest employer is the tourism industry—the simple reality is that Labor's so-called penalty rates reforms have driven unemployment up.
Take, for example, a sandwich bar just down the road from my electorate office, which used to be open six days a week. With Labor's reforms, and as they introduced the penalty rates which were great for Aussie workers according to the Labor Party, the situation arose with that particular sandwich bar, which had three mothers working as part of the team employed by the sandwich bar owner, that for the store to remain open six days a week—Tuesday through Sunday—was no longer feasible. Because of the rates that had to be paid on a Sunday, the decision was made that it was actually better for the sandwich bar to be closed on Sundays than it was to be open. As the proprietor said to me: 'Why would I open to lose money? It actually makes more sense for me to enjoy a two-day weekend, rather than the one-day weekend I have had for the past four or five years.'
The consequence is that the workers in that particular small business, the people whom Labor claims they are going to help, ended up in net terms receiving less pay because they had fewer hours to work every week. And the amenity of the local area was reduced because there was one less small business available for people to frequent on the weekend. In a tourism town, it could not be more right or necessary for there to be flexibility when it comes to servicing the needs of today's tourists and, importantly, today's employers and employees.
The reality is that in a city like the Gold Coast there is a lot of demand for people to have flexibility. Some people do not want to work standard business hours because that is actually not consistent with what they need for their families. There are a lot of people who like the fact that they can get flexible work hours which enable them to work out of the home at a time when their partner is in the home, so that when one finishes work, the other can go to work. That is exactly the practice that we wanted to put in place. The overall test is always: is the employee better off? Now, Labor is great at headlines, and it is great at saying, 'This is about extra pay to recognise the fact that people are not with their families.' But in doing so they ignore the simple fact that for many families this is a positive choice that Labor denies them.
On public holidays on the Gold Coast, people now pay an extra 10, 15 or 20 per cent on the cost of going to a cafe or a restaurant or some other tourist operation—if it is even open. If you walk up and down the so-called glitter strip these days, chances are there are more places closed on public holidays than there are open. That is the great reform that the Labor Party has driven. This is not just for tourists but also for the community. We have seen, for example, many pharmacies which used to be open seven days a week now closed on weekends or on Sundays as a direct consequence of Labor's reform. Again, the straight-up-and-down translation: fewer services—some would argue, essential community services—and fewer work hours for the so-called workers that Labor is so concerned about. This is nothing more than a headline motion that disregards the fact that there are many positives that flow from increased labour flexibility.
The coalition is not about Work Choices; to quote the Leader of the Opposition: 'That is dead, buried and cremated.' And Labor member after Labor member can get up and run its pathetic scare campaign, but all Australians see right through that pathetic scare campaign. They know that the only puppet controlling the strings when it comes to that side of the House is Australia's trade union movement—and Labor's attempt to keep it a lockdown is part of the their desire to maintain power. (Time expired)
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:16): I rise to speak on this motion and it is a pleasure to follow the member for Moncrieff's words and caution the government about what this will do to small businesses around the country. In a motion of this nature, once again we see the government undermining confidence in our economy by fruitlessly proposing unnecessary legislation in this parliament to do nothing for our economy except damage the confidence of our businesses. I think the shadow Treasurer put it best when he cited CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, on the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook results. He said: 'The competitiveness result is the worst result for Australia in 17 years. The rankings this year show that in labour productivity growth, Australia has dropped from number 26 in the world to number 51 of the 60 countries surveyed.' Former Labor Speaker of this House and one of your predecessors, Madam Deputy Speaker, CEDA Chief Executive Professor the Hon. Stephen Martin, could not have been clearer when he said:
The key issue is that we are seeing other countries … rapidly improve this measure of economic efficiency.
While they are not at our levels yet, they are catching up at a rapid pace and we need to look at productivity-enhancing reforms now rather than when we fall behind.
It is too late. We heard the member for Parramatta talking about industrial relations policy. I say to the member for Parramatta: unemployment in her electorate is at 7.2 per cent—higher than the national average. In Western Sydney, where my electorate is, youth unemployment is at 17 per cent. The member for Greenway is in the chamber—what is her plan to fix youth unemployment in Western Sydney? It certainly will not be helped by this legislating of inflexible things into modern awards. In fact, we take the view that we do not need legislation for all of these features of modern awards—we do not need to legislate the details. We do not need to legislate to take away flexibility.
We are very surprised to see that, once again, the unions have had the final say here. This amendment was not suggested by the Fair Work Review Panel that the government is proposing. This motion that we are debating today was not proposed by the Fair Work Review Panel Who did propose it? All of this has been proposed by Mr Dave Oliver, Secretary of the ACTU. Surprise, surprise! The member for Greenway has gone very silent.
Of course, we on this side want to see harmonious, productive, smart workplaces but I want it known out there that there are calls from industry and other sectors to explain what is going on with penalty rates in today's world. We have heard the restaurant and catering industry say that 10,000 new jobs could be created if they had more flexibility in their businesses—10,000 new jobs straightaway! Mr John Hardy is right about that: flexibility means more jobs. There are no wages for anybody when a business does not open on the weekend. The member for Moncrieff outlined that compellingly.
News.com.au cites a cafe and its cost of doing business from Monday to Friday compared to Sunday. The total cost, including superannuation, on a weekday with two wait staff, one dishwasher, one cook and one manager: $644—that is the cost of opening their cafe on a Monday to Friday. On a Sunday the cost of opening the cafe—Oli and Levi, a small family business—with the same number of staff: $1,239—almost double. The cafe's owner, Lloyd Smith—says if your labour costs are 50 per cent to 70 per cent more expensive on a weekend then it is not worth opening and is too risky. He then goes on to say, 'My staff are crying out for more hours and I'd love to be able to open on weekends, but I can't justify the expense.' That is the experience of the small business sector all around this country at the moment. That is what they are telling government, unions and this parliament: they need more flexibility, not less.
We may not be able to do anything about penalty rates; and we may not want to, because they are an enshrined part of our workplace relations system. But we do need to do more to have flexibility in our workplaces. We do not need fake motions from the government to create an issue for their re-election strategy, and motions which undermine confidence. We see that competitiveness is falling. We see that productivity is now at rock-bottom levels. If we are to have wage increases and legislate this sort of thing, we have to work on productivity increases. The flexibility of our labour market is vital.
We certainly see at the moment a government addicted to the unions. Labor is on track to have given about 160 special rights to unions. Unions now represent only about 13 per cent of workers in the private sector. Why should the unions get 160 special privileges? This motion is faked for the government's electoral advantage and we should vote it down.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) (11:21): I rise to strongly support this motion. In the seat of McEwen I represent over 37,000 people who work in industries affected by unsociable hours. This includes over 8,500 people who work in retail, another 8,000 who work in health care and social assistance and 3,700 workers in the accommodation and food services industry. Removing penalty rates, overtime, shift work allowance and public holiday pay is the introduction to around-the-clock work and lengthening the working day.
Why is it that the coalition think that it is not important for families to be able to sit around the table together, to share a meal and share some quality time? Working on weekends or in unsociable hours have penalty rates because those people working on the weekends and at night are missing out on what we value in Australia. We have penalty rates because weekends or working through nights is different, so we place different conditions on these times to reflect that, and to recognise those social differences.
There are many issues that shift workers face, such as health and wellbeing, and family and social disconnection. I know that from my own experience, when my father worked the night shift in the printing room of the Herald Sun for 35 years. He was unable to participate in what we term 'normal family life' because when we were getting up in the morning, he had just gone to bed after a full night's work. This meant that, due to his working commitments, on many occasions he would be unable to participate in family functions, school sports events or be there for other activities when a parent would like to spend time with their kids. I know from my experience when I was with the RACV, having to work on Christmas Day and doing weekend work on both day shifts and night shifts, how this had a big impact on family life and the loss of participation in special family occasions.
Penalty rates are also extremely important because industries like hospitality and retail have some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. For Australians working in insecure forms of work, penalty rates are more important than ever for casual and low-paid workers to help pay the bills. The Liberal leader has already said to a Liberal-organised community forum in Kingston that he thinks:
The best way forward, at least initially, is to try to ensure the award situation does maximise employment and at the moment we are not maximising employment by closing down businesses and preventing people from getting jobs.
He then went on to say:
I am confident that if the government were to back, for argument's sake, applications to the Fair Work Commission for adjustments in this area it may well be successful.
What he is saying is that an Abbott government would support the axing of penalty rates. It will use the Productivity Commission to drive greater use of individual contracts and attacks on workers' rights and conditions. The coalition's IR policy will legislate for the greater use of individual flexibility agreements, which for businesses and associations have been appalling. Only recently, the Australian Retail Association lost a Fair Work Commission case to slash penalty rates, and they have been very heavy in their praise of Mr Abbott. It has also been reported in newspapers that retailers and hospitality employees plan to campaign after the election for the relaxation of penalty rates after opposition leader Tony Abbott signalled support in such cases in the workplace tribunal.
Let us never forget that the key element of Work Choices policy was winding back penalty rates. It is in the Liberals' DNA to ensure that they hurt the lowest-paid workers in this country. We all remember their anti-worker laws which allowed retail giant Spotlight to try to impose AWAs on its workers by granting a two-cent-an-hour pay rise for removing all their penalty rates, overtime and holiday pay. When he was minister, Mr Abbott was quoted as saying:
… a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father … He might be a bad boss, but at least he's employing someone while he is in fact a boss.
I think that goes to the heart of his DNA. He does not particularly care how people in the suburbs or the community feel; he only worries about himself.
We heard a member before talking about how the IR policy will be no WorkChoices because it is written down. Last week we saw that his word is not worth the paper it is written on. During their time they removed penalty rates, breaks between shifts, minimum and maximum shift lengths and a cap on the number of consecutive days worked. You only have to read the FIFO report by the regional Australia committee to see how it impacts on families.
It is the Gillard government that will enshrine penalty rates into law to give workers greater certainty that they will be protected—whether it is those working on night shift, overtime, unsocial or irregular or unpredictable hours on weekends and public holidays. It is we who support shift workers, whether they are in manufacturing, hospitality or public safety, such as police and ambulance officers. It is about time that those opposite really went out and did the same. It is this side of the House that always stands up for workers; those on that side of the House that always want to stand on them.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (11:26): The coalition supports individual flexibility arrangements—Labor's individual flexibility arrangements—but we want them to be more effective. Individual flexibility arrangements should not be excluded by enterprise bargaining agreements. Our position is clear, and has been stated on a number of occasions. I will state it again: the umpire, the Fair Work Commission, after hearing all submissions, should make the decision, balancing all considerations. The liberal parties are the true originators and protectors of the great Aussie notion of the fair go. There can be no better way of getting ahead than getting a job. The Liberal Party has always, and will always, work to ensure that jobs are our number one focus. A Liberal government will work to create the conditions for growth and make it easier to get a job. Cutting back on red tape and green tape will increase the pool of available jobs.
This motion aspires to a noble and worthwhile end, but adopts a misguided means laden with potentially unintended consequences. By this I mean that every single member of the coalition wants to see the quality of life of all Australians improve. However, the way to go about doing this is not to resort to outdated economic concepts like price floors. Unlike Labor, the coalition recognises that the world of work has changed and that the world in which we work has changed. Australia has to become more competitive. We compete every day with every country around the world. The work week is no longer nine to five, Monday to Friday. To deny the obvious changes in our way of living is as inane as to deny the internet, 24-hour shopping and banking and so on.
In 2009, noted New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote The World is Flat. The book is a prescient reminder to Australia and all Western developed nations that we must adapt to the new reality of a globally-connected world, where intellectual services are traded easily, or die. One has only to look at Australia's position on the competitiveness index to know that we are not going in the right direction.
Presently, Australia is ranked 20th by the World Economic Forum, two places lower than Saudi Arabia—so too on unit labour productivity, as it is when one removes the crutch of the resources industry. One can see again that we are moving in the wrong direction, and the trend is negative. By implementing a price-floor model into a globally obsolete notion of the working week, Labor is ensuring fewer of the people it purports to help will be at work. Fewer young people, part-time workers and those returning to work will have work. Put simply, the higher the unit cost of labour, the fewer people will be employed.
The Fair Work Commission is best placed to arbitrate on the market-clearing rate of labour, plus sufficient and appropriate compensation to correct asymmetries of information on the part of the worker. Making Australia more uncompetitive does nothing to address the needs of the Australian worker in the knowledge economy, to say nothing of the Asian century. There needs to be less red and green tape. There needs to be a recognition of individual flexibility arrangements, provided a greater or compensating benefit has been won—again, the proper recourse being the Fair Work Commission.
Scrap the carbon tax to ease the pressure on Australian business. Fix the budget to return certainty and confidence to the Australian economy. If we do not work to build real solutions and instead opt for ideas best consigned to the scrap heap of history, then we will never get to having that cafe society. The hospitality industry will continue to feel the strain and our best chance of sustainability growth via a sustainable industry in tourism will be jeopardised.
The Fair Work Commission was set up to be the independent umpire on issues of award and penalty rates, yet here we are discussing a motion that in essence undermines the role of the Fair Work Commission. Where is the trust in the umpire—an umpire the Labor government set up?
Mr MARLES (Corio) (11:31): Rather than being a motion which undermines the work of Fair Work Australia, as has been said by the member for Tangney, this is a motion which absolutely supports the work of Fair Work Australia and its predecessor, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, since its inception in 1904—because that is what occurred to give rise to penalty rates. That is why am so pleased to speak today in support of the member for La Trobe's motion before the House.
Penalty rates are an acknowledgement of the fact that, when you work other than nine to five, there is a cost. There is a cost to your ability to pursue your personal life, your family life, whatever you choose to do. Working unsociable hours is a more difficult thing to do and comes at a greater cost to people personally than working between nine and five, and that is because, naturally, our society has organised itself around people largely working from nine to five. Therefore, many of the things we enjoy doing in our lives are scheduled outside of those times, which means people miss out in the event they are asked to work outside that spread of hours between nine and five.
Penalty rates acknowledge that and acknowledge that there should be appropriate compensation for that. Obviously, it varies according to how much you are working outside the nine-to-five spread, what day you are working on and the significance of that day. That is how it should be and that has been built up through the process of collective bargaining and the process of arbitration in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and in Fair Work Australia since 1904. It is a very significant part of the way in which we conduct our working lives today. It is also now a part of people's remuneration, forming the basis on which people calculate their take-home pay. When you remove penalty rates, you actually eat in to people's ability to earn a living wage. So penalty rates go really go to the heart of the balance between work and family life in terms of both the hours that you work and the amount you are able to bring home to sustain your family.
The most important defence or safety mechanism that we have to ensure that penalty rates have their appropriate place within our society and within our working arrangements is collective bargaining. Collective bargaining ought to be and is right now at the heart of our industrial relations system—enterprise bargaining to workplace, not centralised wage fixing. Indeed, that is the international norm that we as a member of the International Labour Organization promulgate to the world in terms of how bargaining ought to be conducted, and it is the safeguard of penalty rates in this country. The reason I raise this is that when we see laws put up which seek to undermine collective bargaining, as we did through Australian workplace agreements under the previous Howard government's Work Choices legislation, that is when we see a serious attack on penalty rates and that is, in fact, what occurred.
Most Australian workplace agreements which were signed did something to remove the penalty rate for the worker. It is a system which encourages people to bargain away long-fought gains which have been achieved over decades through collective bargaining and through arbitration. That is the great concern about a legislated scheme of individual contracts, which is what we saw with Australian workplace agreements and what, in the policy announced by the Tony Abbott opposition, would come into being were they ever to achieve government in this country. The centrepiece of what they are about, as always, is to remove enterprise bargaining as the centrepiece of our industrial relations system and replace it with a legislated individual contract agreed between a worker and their company. In no other place in our economy do we see such a discrepancy in bargaining power enshrined in our law as we saw with Australian workplace agreements and as we will see again if ever there is a coalition government which puts forward the policy Tony Abbott is talking about. It puts one person totally at the mercy of another. There is no unfairer place in Australia's system of law and it will lead to a reduction of penalty rates.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:37): In addressing this private members motion today, I have to agree that work-life balance is extremely important. However, I must say that too much emphasis on either and the other one suffers. Like most of the legislation which comes through this place from the government, there is always a sting in the tail. We are focusing on the health and welfare of workers, their families and our communities, but the silent victims are the owners of small businesses who, in my electorate in particular, are being driven to the wall financially and emotionally. Penalty rates are very much a contributor. It is no surprise for me to see that tourism provides 11.3 per cent of all jobs in Cairns, with retail accounting for 11.3 per cent and hospitality 10.9 per cent.
When talking about work-life balance, it is important to realise that that scenario is only an issue if you have a job. We are seeing many small businesses—particularly in hospitality—fold as a direct result of an imbalance created in this area. In my region, of the 23,900 businesses 1,303 were classified as medium- or large-sized companies meaning that, as of June last year, 22,597 businesses in my electorate were classified as small businesses.
In these small, family-owned businesses the smallest change in profitability margins can make a huge difference as a result of the slightest of downturns, new competitors or high staffing costs. I highlight the case of Krokodillos restaurant at Yorkeys Knob where I live, a place I visit on many occasions. It is a lovely spot with relaxed tropical dining, friendly service and great modern Aussie tucker put on by the owners Greg and Sarah Rochford. This small business is open five nights a week from Wednesday to Sunday and operates only between 5 pm and 9 pm. As you can see, those hours mean that they are constantly forced into a penalty rate situation.
Krokodillos has been operating now for seven years. Greg and Sarah now need to spend more time with their seven-year-old daughter, Madison and they have had it on the market for a long time. Greg and Sarah work every day and every night. They work it themselves to make a living. But the work-life balance is clearly not there and they cannot spend time with their daughter. I know that they would love to be able to take on more staff so that they have more quality family time, but they have limited opening hours and have to pay penalty rates to staff for every one of those. When people go out for a meal and a drink late at night, they expect people to be working and businesses to be able to offer their products at a price that they are prepared to pay. We need to create an environment where small businesses are able to provide those jobs—because, at the end of the day, they are the only ones that will.
The Fair Work Amendment Bill came up for debate recently, and penalty rates formed a key discussion point. I note the secretary of the trades and labour council said in a speech on 6 February, 'We are asking the government to enshrine penalty rates and weekend work legislation to protect it forever'. I have seen many businesses in my electorate close down and the heartbreak and financial and emotional stress that follows. Unfortunately, this motion demeans the Fair Work Commission and its role as the so-called independent umpire. The minister has indicated that the government would not countenance any reduction in penalty fees. Therefore, if the Fair Work Commission rules that way, as the minister has signalled, it will be perceived that the Fair Work Commission is being monstered by the minister. I am very sympathetic to the concerns of businesses but, at the end of the day, it is a matter for the Fair Work Commission to determine, and I hope that it will take into account the very real impact that they are having on small businesses.
Debate adjourned.
Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance and Deregulation
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:42): I move:
That this House expresses full confidence in the:
(1) Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance and Deregulation;
(2) Treasury Secretary, Dr Martin Parkinson and Finance Secretary, David Tune; and
(3) following words by Treasury Secretary, Martin Parkinson: ‘I can say on behalf of David Tune, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and myself—and get this right—were PEFO [the Pre Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook] to have been released on the 14th of May, it would have contained the numbers that were in the budget.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Windsor: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I am all for vigorous debate in this chamber, as I hope we all are about the ideas facing our nation, but there has been a recent trend where rhetoric has drifted a long way from reality. That is why on the motion last week we got the House to move a confidence motion and see the House of Representatives and every single member in this House support with full confidence the science community of Australia and the advice that man-made climate change is real.
Likewise, today is a chance for the House of Representatives to express in full its confidence on the work of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation and end this game of rhetoric in the public domain, somehow questioning the advice that is received from the best that we have got in this country on advice around the budget, around PEFO and around forecasting and estimates. It is a problem that, culturally, we seem to be getting more and more into. Only today the candidate in my electorate was questioning the estimates from the New South Wales and the Commonwealth education departments. We are seeing questioning of the corporate plan of the National Broadband Network. We are seeing ASIO's work being questioned.
Again, I am all for full debate in this chamber, but it is drifting off our job if we are attacking those who cannot respond, who are working in an apolitical way and providing the best advice possible, and saying that it is all being done for some sort of political expediency. Public servants are just that—they are here to serve the public in this country—to serve the public. They are not here to serve one political persuasion or the other; they are here to do the job of providing the best possible advice they can without fear or favour. I would hope that this chamber accepts that, acknowledges that, respects that and endorses that ongoing work regardless of temperatures raising over the next three or four months with regard to elections.
My colleague next to me, the member for New England, and I, on the back of the 2010 election, saw this firsthand with the departments of Treasury and Finance. All the election promises were put on the table. There was a break of the conventions around elections, where, thankfully, the leaders of both political parties agreed to allow us access to Treasury and Finance, and we witnessed firsthand the very best in this country working through all the election promises made and providing advice, without fear or favour, at a very difficult time and, in many cases, with personal consequences to these senior public officials. They did it without bias. They sat with the leadership teams of all persuasions, argued the toss, and then put their signatures onto paper in the most objective way possible.
They are honest men and women. They are men and women of integrity, and I think they are doing all they can to provide the very best and most certain advice in challenging political times. So the reason for this vote today is to make sure the House has not forgotten that, and to make sure the words spoken publicly, from people like the Treasury secretary, Dr Martin Parkinson, are confirmed as accurate by all members in this House. When he says that of 14 May the budget, if we are talking about the pre-election financial outlook known as PEFO, then PEFO would have equalled the budget, and the budget would have equalled PEFO. There is no difference. There is nowhere to hide in any fudging of the figures. There is nowhere to hide in some grand conspiracy of public servants turning into political party apparatchiks.
The figures are the figures. The deficit is the deficit. There is no secret bottom-drawer figure. PEFO would have equalled the budget, and the budget would have equalled PEFO. So to have heard comments in this chamber that challenge that—and certainly to have heard comments in the public domain that challenge that—and question the integrity of officials who will work for all sides of politics in the best way they can for our nation, I think— (Time expired)
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:47): We share the member for Lyne's confidence in the Treasury and Finance but we certainly do not share the member for Lyne's confidence in the Treasurer and the government which the member for Lyne and the member for New England support. There is a small fact that the member for Lyne may wish to acquaint himself with—it came from an act of parliament put in place by the best Treasurer Australia has ever had, Peter Costello, in 1996—
Mr Windsor interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: The member for New England might not want to follow the standing orders that he sanctimoniously claims that he supports all the time but if he would not mind not interrupting during this it would be terrific.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Order! The member will address his remarks through the chair.
Mr BRIGGS: The Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 has several divisions. Division 1, section 10, budget and economic fiscal outlook report, starts with:
The Treasurer is to publicly release and table a budget economic and fiscal outlook report at the time of each budget.
So that is the Treasurer's own document. Division 2, the midyear economic and fiscal report, is owned by the Treasurer, I remind the member for Lyne. The Treasurer is responsible for the public releasing and tabling, under division 3, of the final budget outcome report, Member for Lyne. The Treasurer is responsible, under part 6, for the intergenerational report, Member for Lyne. And under part 7, the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report, the responsible secretaries publicly release, member for Lyne.
So there is a distinction in the acts of parliament, putting aside the fact that the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation have their names attached and signatures on the actual budget document. It is their document. That is the executive responsibility of the government of the day.
The forecasts, the numbers and all the projections are the work of the Treasurer and the minister for finance. Of course they are advised. Of course they take advice and information from the Treasury and the finance department. We support the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation in the work they do, but they are owned and operated documents and directions from the executive government. It is a perfectly clear fact, and we are perfectly right to question the government when they put in policies that have such negative consequences not just for today but for the future.
I will just point to one that the member for Lyne has supported up hill and down dale—that is, the mining tax, the farce of the mining tax that he still supports to this moment. He nods his head in agreement—the farce of the mining tax! This is a document that the Prime Minister herself takes credit for. There is no Treasury involvement there. In fact, they bragged about them not being in the room. We know that other Independents in this chamber know a fair bit about the mining industry as well.
This mining tax is the tax that in this forward estimates, in this budget year, was expected to have $4 billion in revenue. Do you know how much it has raised? How much has it raised? It has raised five per cent, but it gets better. The member for Lyne is sitting there going: 'This is terrific. Woo hoo! What a great job the Treasurer is doing. What a great job this government I am propping up is doing. Five per cent!' Guess how much the government has spent on it? One hundred per cent of the five per cent it got. You joke, seriously. This is the government that this member for Lyne supports. That is just one example of where the Treasurer and his document, the one that he signs off on, are a farce.
Another example, one close to my heart, was last weekend, where we had in the low-detention facility in Inverbrackie a convicted Egyptian jihadist—and the member for New England laughs. He laughs! You will be answerable to the electorate about this.
Dr Leigh: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I would urge you to draw the member back to the matter before the chair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The parliamentary secretary has a point. The member was straying quite significantly from the— (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (11:52): Too often the crucial work of our nation's public servants goes unnoticed and goes unthanked. As the member for Fraser I am pleased to say that many of these hardworking public servants are my constituents. I myself have been seconded to Treasury and have seen firsthand the hard work of those public servants. We on this side of the House believe in a frank and fearless Public Service in the great Westminster tradition. Those opposite would prefer to have a flaccid and fearful Public Service. That is their ideal of public service.
It is clear why those opposite have spent three years waging a smear campaign against Treasury. It is because they have an ever-widening costings black hole. They are therefore desperate to avoid scrutiny of their costings, and they see the boffins and the bean counters as an obstacle to that. At the 2010 election, the member for North Sydney concocted bogus allegations of Treasury politicisation to avoid submitting coalition policies to Treasury and Finance. Instead, the opposition had their policies costed by a private accounting firm, who overlooked that they had an $11 billion black hole. That private accounting firm was subsequently fined by the Institute of Chartered Accountants for breaching professional standards. Despite that, the member for Goldstein has in this chamber claimed that those faux costings were 'as good as you can get anywhere in the country, including in Treasury'.
On 19 September, I was witness in this chamber to a savage attack by the member for Goldstein against the institution of Treasury and against then Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, who, as honourable members know, was appointed by Treasurer Costello to that position. The member for Goldstein claimed the $11 billion black hole was:
… something fabricated with the use of Treasury officials to give government a political advantage.
The member for Mackellar—who in 1992 shot to prominence after attacking public servant Trevor Boucher—joined in, saying:
… this Parliamentary Budget Office is something that is simply linked to the coattails of Treasury.
She went on:
I made the point that Treasury and the head of Treasury had been rewarded for things that they had done to assist the government.
… … …
… it is politicised and that is why we cannot trust them.
The member for Mackellar has even said of former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry:
He served the government very well in the latter stages of his appointment, particularly when it came to assessing the budget savings that were put forward by the opposition prior to the last election.
This is like a rich kid who gets a maths question wrong and, instead of accepting the right answer, goes to the principal asking for the teacher to be sacked.
The opposition in the last election were badly out in their costings, and their pretext now is that budget forecasts cannot be relied on. The member for North Sydney has said:
The numbers are just not believable. It is fundamentally a dishonest budget.
… … …
I don't believe they are Treasury numbers. They are Wayne Swan's numbers.
Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson has directly rejected these allegations. He said on 21 May:
I can say on behalf of David Tune, the secretary of the Department of Finance and myself—and get this right—were PEFO to have been released on the 14th of May, it would have contained the numbers that were in the budget.
PEFO is produced independently by Treasury and Finance in caretaker period, without political oversight. Dr Parkinson has told us in crystal clear terms that the numbers in the budget represent the best professional estimates of Treasury and Finance. They have not been tampered with by the Deputy Prime Minister as those opposite would have you believe. They are the best estimates of honest and hardworking public servants.
The member for North Sydney continued his extraordinary slur, saying:
I would have expected Martin Parkinson to say nothing different yesterday because he is, quite appropriately, a servant of the government.
This is continuing in the same vein as the members for Goldstein and Mackellar. He should withdraw that claim. Attacking Treasury is not only unfounded; it is also weak. In public debate, public servants do not have the opportunity to defend themselves as we in this place do. It is wrong to treat them like a political football.
On the other side of politics, Senator Sinodinos, my opposition counterpoint as shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, has worked hard in the Department of Treasury and who I think knows as— (Time expired)
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:57): I rise today to speak on this most curious of motions. I call it curious because I find it intriguing that a so-called Independent would be parroting the exact same lines as the government. I find it curious that a so-called Independent is pursuing the distraction agenda of the Treasurer and, through this motion, would seek to try to politicise the public service.
It seems that the member for Lyne, and for that matter the member for New England, who has seconded this motion, have more confidence in the Prime Minister and Treasurer than many members of the government's increased backbench—just ask the member for Hotham. I must say that I find it hard to keep up with the Treasurer: on the one hand, he claims to be a great economic manager when compared to European countries whose economies have imploded, then we are meant to believe he is a mere cipher for Treasury, that the budget produced itself and that he is merely the messenger.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of a budget knows that it is the government's document; wholly and completely. There are only two names attributed to these documents, and neither of them are Dr Martin Parkinson or Mr David Tune. They are, in fact, the Treasurer and the finance minister. These documents are theirs; they own them. They own the numbers inside them and must take responsibility for them.
The Charter of Budget Honesty states clearly that the budget papers and the mid-year economic update are signed off by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. These are political documents. The heroic assumptions and massive revisions are the product of the Treasurer and finance minister. The charter is explicit: the only document signed off by the Treasury Secretary and the Finance secretary is the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook—PEFO—which is released within 10 days of the writs being issued for an election.
Let me be clear: on this side of the chamber we understand that Treasury have a job to do and they do it well. There are many talented and hard-working people in Treasury and Finance who serve our nation with great distinction. Our concern has never been about Treasury or Finance; it has been about the constant shortcomings of this government, and in particular this Treasurer. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr Tune who promised a surplus over 500 times, it was the Treasurer, Wayne Swan—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Report
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:00): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Leave granted.
Ms OWENS: by leave—the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax system. The bill contains 11 schedules. Full details of the measures are outlined in the explanatory memorandum.
The proposed amendments are implementing key government objectives as part of an ongoing tax reform. For example, schedule 1 amends tax laws to require large entities in the pay-as-you-go instalment system to make their instalments monthly instead of quarterly. While not increasing companies' tax burden, this measure is forecast to raise around $950m over the forward estimates. Schedule 2 introduces a tax loss incentive for designated infrastructure projects, which in turn will encourage investment.
On 30 May 2013 the selection committee referred the bill to the Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report. It is the view of the committee that, due to the urgency of the bill and the need to resume the second reading debate, there is insufficient time to undertake an inquiry.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (12:02): by leave—Coalition members put in a dissenting report to the committee's advisory report on the TLAB bill No. 2. We did so because coalition members were aggrieved at the fact that, despite schedule 1 alone representing an increase in tax revenues for this government of around $1 billion, the government has so poorly handled and scheduled the legislation for debate in this chamber, with over 100 bills still outstanding, that now on an initiative that will raise nearly $1 billion, the government deems that they do not have enough time for there to be an inquiry of the House of Representatives Economics Committee into the measures contained in the bill. One of the most fundamental aspects of the parliamentary committee process is to ensure scrutiny over executive government. We all remember the days when the Prime Minister stood up and heralded this being a new age of enlightenment: let the sunshine in, let there be transparency and scrutiny. Yet when it comes to a billion-dollar measure the government says, 'Sorry, we don't have enough time, there is not going to be any inquiry. Tough luck.' So coalition members issued a dissenting report because it is a travesty that there is not adequate parliamentary committee oversight of this executive government—100 per cent a consequence of nothing else other than this government's inability to direct and control its legislative agenda.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Parliamentary Delegation to Lebanon
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (12:03): by leave—On 25 May a delegation of myself and the member for Cook was sent to Lebanon for the ordination of the new Maronite bishop. The ordination of the new Maronite bishop, Bishop Tarabay, represents a wonderful moment for the Maronite Church in Australia.
I have known Father Tarabay, as he then was, for many years both as the priest at St Charbel's in Punchbowl and as a friend. He has been a genuine community leader and a voice for peace and unity in the community for a long time. When I contacted him to congratulate him after the announcement had been made of his imminent appointment, he immediately asked whether or not it would be possible to have Australian representation, and I was pleased that, for the first time, we had a bipartisan delegation go across to Lebanon to attend the ordination. It is the first time that the Australian parliament has sent such a delegation to an event such as this anywhere in the world. It is also the first time that the Maronite Church have chosen their bishop of Australia from amongst the Australian clergy. There were messages presented to his Lordship—or, as he is called within the Maronite Church, Sayedna—from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition, and when I have both of those in my possession I will be happy to table them together. The decision to choose the new bishop from among the Australian clergy is a great tribute to the growth of the Maronite Church within Australia and to the significant strength of that faith as it is viewed by the hierarchy and by the patriarch himself in Beirut.
At the event, where the member for Cook and I represented Australia, the representative of the government of Lebanon was a minister, Mr Walid Daouk. I think it is significant that the President chose a Sunni Muslim as the Lebanese government's representative at the ordination of the Maronite bishop. Lined up along the front row were Mrs Nayla Mouwad, His Excellency Mr Gibran Basil, Mr Chaker Salame, Mr Samir Geagea, Mr Boutros Harb and Mr Tony Franjieh, all of them political rivals in different ways. Some of them have lost loved ones through assassination and through extraordinarily heated battle, and one of them has spent many, many years imprisoned, yet all of them lined up for what was an extraordinary moment of unity for the ordination itself.
The following day, we had a celebration in the village of Bishop Tarabay, the village of Tannourine. I have to say the Lebanese know how to celebrate in a way that Australians cannot match. It was one of the most extraordinary celebrations I suspect I will ever see. As we walked through the streets, a number of young women from the area in traditional dress threw rice and rose petals everywhere, which the member for Cook and I were assured were being thrown for the benefit of the Bishop, not for us! We had Lebanese drums being beaten loudly, we had fireworks going off and we had other forms of percussion in the background, celebratory as well. There was an extraordinary sense, as thousands lined the streets—almost all of whom had some connection to Australia—that this was a unique celebration, as special for Australia as it was for Lebanon.
A couple of days earlier, I had had the opportunity to meet with President Sleiman. I am very glad, Madam Deputy Speaker Owens, that you are in the chair at this moment, because it was you who first raised with me the prospect, in honour of this occasion, of planting a cedar of Lebanon in Australia. After my meeting with President Sleiman, I was able to go to the gardens of the presidential palace and, there, right in the middle of the gardens, are an old cedar tree, a young cedar tree and an olive tree. Planted there with them now is an Australian gum tree. I took the opportunity on behalf of the Prime Minister, when we were in Tannourine, to invite Bishop Tarabay, on his return to Australia, to come to the Lodge in Canberra where, in amongst the Australian trees, a cedar of Lebanon will be planted too. In this way, when the westerly winds blow through Canberra and the eucalyptus leaves fall, they will be landing side by side with the needle-like leaves of a cedar of Lebanon. In Lebanon, in the presidential palace, the roots of the cedar of Lebanon will intertwine with an Australian eucalypt. They will be criss-crossing their way on the same soil on which stood the apostles, the gum tree's roots forever bound with those of the cedar of Lebanon.
There is an extraordinary pride within the Maronite community and the Lebanese community generally about the connections that have remained with family and with faith between Australia and Lebanon. This was a wonderful occasion. I was deeply pleased that it was able to be dealt with in a bipartisan manner and I have no doubt that the ordination of Bishop Tarabay augurs very well for the Maronite community and all Australians for many years to come.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:10): by leave—I rise also to offer my congratulations to His Grace Bishop Antoine Tarabay. I had the privilege of attending his ordination representing the Leader of the Opposition, and attended with the minister at the table, Minister Burke. It was a truly significant event in the life of the Maronite community, not only in Australia but also in Lebanon itself, and particularly for the village of Tannourine, which was able to celebrate its first-ever Maronite bishop from that village. The look of pride on Bishop Tarabay's parents' faces—very modest people from very humble circumstances, who were the pride of their village; indeed, they were the pride of the entire Maronite community—was something to behold and something to truly remember and reflect on for some time.
It was a privilege to be there to represent the Leader of the Opposition, and I will later seek leave to table the letter that the Leader of the Opposition forwarded to His Grace Bishop Tarabay during the thanksgiving mass that was celebrated in the village of Tannourine. But it is a joyous time for the Maronite Church of Australia, and we join with our brothers and sisters in Christ in offering our prayers of thanksgiving as well as for wisdom and guidance and grace for His Grace. We also recognise the work and pay tribute to the service of Bishop Abi Karam, who for 12 years was the third Maronite Bishop of Australia, as he hands on his responsibility for his flock to Bishop Tarabay.
It was a privilege to go to Lebanon two weeks ago and participate in the ordination at the Patriarchal See on 25 May. This was truly an amazing event in the most spectacular of locations. You could not be anything but struck by the history and the solemness of this occasion, and its significance in the life of this tremendous faith community in this very, very remarkable place. It was an honour to bear witness to his ordination and to have so many of the flock that he will serve here in Australia, and particularly in my home state of New South Wales and across Sydney, joining the minister at the table and I in attending that significant event.
The following day we were invited together, as the minister has said, to the thanksgiving mass at St Anthony's church in Tannourine, and we were made most welcome by that village. Our hosts there were incredibly generous with their time and their friendship. The history of the Maronites dates back to the fifth century and the church owes its name to St Maron's monastery and the life of service lived by the hermit Maron. The love of the gospel he instilled in his followers was the cornerstone on which this, his church, was built. There have been and there remain great challenges, but the Maronites draw great strength from their faith. I was pleased to be reminded of the words of James when he said:
Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
This was borne out to me when, on the morning of the thanksgiving mass, I had the opportunity to be joined by a very good friend in Joseph Assaf where we stayed. The minister stayed with him on the previous night at his home village of Hardine, 80 kilometres from Beirut. Mr Assaf is a constituent of the member for Reid and an outstanding Australian. In this place, in a week or so, we will celebrate the Ethnic Business Awards, which he has championed over many, many years. On this occasion he hosted me in his home village—but not only that, he also took me through the villages of the entire north of Lebanon where so many in our Maronite community in Australia come from.
Of the 370,000 or so Maronites who live in New South Wales, 85 per cent have descended from or have come directly from these villages—Mazrahat Abi Saab Knat, Hadith El Joubbe and Diman. We visited the Maronite Patriarcate summer residence and its beautiful church. We were at Hasroun, Bahkafra, the birthplace of Saint Charbel, Becharre—which I understand is the home village of Bob Katter and it was great to remind him of that when I saw him in the chamber last week—Hadcheet, Ban, Blawza, Kfarsghab and Ehden. We also visited Saint Antonio's monastery where we lunched with monks and shared a meal with the hermit Father Khawand, who was in Australia for many years before ending up at Kosba and Bouza Salem, which is where the husband of the Governor of New South Wales is from.
The last place I visited was Tannourine and the Bishop Tarabay himself was baptised in its picturesque and ancient church. That really brought the whole thing full circle. It is about the faith of this man, who is now our Maronite Bishop of Australia. He is a devoted man to his faith and to his community. He entered the Lebanese Maronite Order in 1983 and was ordained a priest in 1993. He served as the rector of St Charbel's monastery, church and college in Punchbowl, southern Sydney, for more than 10 years. He is well respected within and outside the Australian Maronite community and leads through service in his ministry and pastoral care. He has overseen the academic and religious education of young Australian-Lebanese Maronites and under his tenure as principal, St Charbel's has earned a reputation as a truly fine educational institution.
Father Tarabay set up a Maronite youth centre and has encouraged young Australians to play a part in their community, to be involved in the church and to volunteer. It was pleasing to see a number of them present in the village and at the ordination. During his time as rector he has been involved in a wide range of community initiatives and has invested countless hours in charity.
The depth and breadth of those who have travelled so far, from all walks of life, to be there in Lebanon on this tremendous occasion and to stand by him was indeed a reflection on the bishop and his character and a further testimony to the great enduring faith of the wonderful Maronite people who, over centuries, have suffered all manner of things. It is their faith that has provided them stability in their cultural, religious and personal lives, and they can truly celebrate—as will be done this evening, in Sydney, where I understand he will celebrate his first mass.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (12:17): I table the letters of congratulations to Bishop Tarabay from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
COMMITTEES
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Committee
Report
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12:17): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry I present the committee's report on the inquiry into the National Rural Advisory Council annual report 2011-12 together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr ADAMS: by leave—The council, commonly referred to as NRAC, is an independent body providing advice to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on matters including rural adjustment, regional issues, training, exceptional circumstances applications and the extension of the exceptional circumstances declarations.
In 2011-12 one of the NRAC's core responsibilities was the review of the exceptional circumstances declarations that would expire that year. They included declarations in the Murray River and Lower Lakes Corridor, Bundarra and the Eurobodalla regions. The NRAC's determination was that these declarations did not need renewal. Australia was deemed drought-free for the first time in a decade. Following this, the NRAC was tasked with a program of policy development work within the agriculture sector. This included assessment of the multiperil crop insurance and the Farm Management Deposits Scheme, aimed at reducing volatility in farm incomes over the longer term and agriculture employers workforce planning capacities.
To reflect this shift in its focus, the committee recommended that the NRAC's competition be monitored to ensure that its membership adequately reflected the skills needed to deliver high-quality outcomes for its current work program. In parallel with the NRAC's work, a process has been undertaken by the Council of Australian Government's Standing Council on Primary Industries to examine drought assistance reform. This was born in part by the 2008 declaration of that body stating that exceptional circumstances declarations were no longer an effective mechanism for managing drought assistance, and that the focus would be better placed on better planning and preparation for times of hardship.
In examining the shape of a future effective policy, the council commissioned economic, social and climatic assessments aimed at examining how the current national drought policy affected farming families and communities. Armed with the results of these assessments, a trial of new measures was conducted in Western Australia over 2010-2011. A review of this trial made a range of recommendations to provide a more robust future policy. Broadly, those included income and social support, strategic farm business planning and ongoing access to the Farm Management Deposits Scheme and other taxation incentives.
Moving on from the trial, the Standing Council on Primary Industries entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform in May this year. The agreement centres on five key areas: a farm household support payment; promoting farm management deposits and other taxation matters; a national approach to farm business training; a coordinated and collaborative approach to division of social support and services; and tools and technologies to inform farmer decision-making.
An early part of these reforms has included the announcement of a farm financing package, aimed at providing assistance to agribusiness. At the time of this report formal agreements between the Commonwealth, states and territories had not been reached, nor had relevant legislation been enacted to enable the elements of the package to commence. The committee recommends that those agreements and legislation be finalised as soon as possible to ensure that assistance flows to farmers and communities by the planned commencement date of 1 July 2013. The committee also recommended that the agreements be implemented and the full package of drought reform be completed so that it could be commenced no later than the agreed date of 1 July 2014.
I would like to thank the representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the National Rural Advisory Council who appeared before the committee's public hearing. Their assistance in clarifying a range of matters for the committee proved invaluable in the development of the report. I hope that the committee's recommendations and the significant effort of all levels of government in developing a package of drought assistance reforms concludes with a positive outcome for farming families and communities throughout Australia.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (12:23): by leave—I think it is extremely important as we discuss this report this morning that we note we have the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the chamber here with us, because I would like to support the comments by the chair on our committee's investigations of this report. I would also like to thank the secretariat, who are with us today in the chamber as well, for their work on this.
All members of the committee, from all sides of parliament, were unanimous in the recommendations they put forward. I would like to read the two recommendations which I think are incredibly relevant to Australian farming today. Recommendation 2 states:
Given that regions across Australia are once again experiencing drought conditions, the Committee calls on the Australian Government, States and Territories to finalise the Farm Finance Package so that it can be implemented by 1 July 2013.
Recommendation 3 states:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Council of Australian Governments’ Standing Committee on Primary Industries, ensures that the complete new package of drought reform measures is agreed and implemented by the stated target date of 1 July 2014.
There are conditions across the country at the moment which are placing huge stresses on our farmers, whether they be in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria—both the northern parts of Victoria and my electorate in the south-west part of Victoria.
We need the federal government and the states to work cooperatively to get the farm finance package concluded by 1 July 2013. We also have to ensure that the further reform of how drought assistance is provided to our farmers is finalised by 1 July 2014. I call on the federal government and the states and territories to please understand the need, in particular, to give assistance to our farmers immediately. There is a real need out there in our communities, and I call on the federal, state and territory governments to sit down and get the farm financing package concluded. I understand that the interest rate subsidy has been decided at 4½ per cent. We need to get the rest of the details agreed, and we need to get help to these farmers who are doing it very, very tough at the moment.
Education and Employment Committee
Advisory Report on the Australian Education Bill 2012
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:26): I seek leave to table an erratum to the advisory report on the Australian Education Bill 2012.
Leave granted.
Mr RAMSEY: In the dissenting report a quote was attributed—using the proof of the Hansard transcript, which was later updated—to Dr Griffiths, CEO of the National Catholic Education Commission. It should have instead been attributed to Stephen Elder of the National Catholic Education Commission, and I table that correction.
BILLS
Australian Education Bill 2012
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 is of the view that the:
(1) objects of the bill should be amended to read:
(a) families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs;
(b) all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education;
(c) student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socio-economic need;
(d) students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling;
(e) as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems;
(f) schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students;
(g) every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth Government;
(h) schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future;
(i) parents who wish to make a private contribution toward the cost of their child’s education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment; and
(j) funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality;
(2) definitions in the bill should be supplemented to define a non-systemic school as a non-government school that is not a systemic school, and a systemic school as an approved school that is approved as a member of an approved school system; and
(3) bill should provide that the current funding arrangements be extended for a further two years, to guarantee funding certainty for schools and parents”.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:27): I continue my remarks from 13 March on the Australian Education Bill 2012 and welcome the opportunity as so much has moved on since then—or has it? Before my speech was interrupted 10 weeks ago and then put off by legislation that the government thought more important, I was talking about education and how devoid of detail the bill and the government's plans were. The lack of detail remains disappointing—yet typical of the big-talking, over-promising and under-delivering Gillard government.
This Labor government like to talk about how they are implementing Gonski, with their National Plan for School Improvement. It sounds grand. It sounds impressive. The name 'Gonski' is something like a symbol that some see as a panacea for education. 'Just say 'Gonski' and all will be good,' they say. Under this Labor government our OECD standing in education has been on a slide—but, again, just say 'Gonski' and all will be good again! Gonski is therefore somewhat messianic in how it is viewed.
I look now at the detail that is available. The government claim they are implementing Gonski, but it is not Gonski—nothing like it. If it were Gonski, where is the $6.6 billion of new money each year for the next six years that was required by Gonski? This is an illusion by an over-promising and under-delivering government, and the teachers and the principals in every school across this country should not be taken in by the charade. Over six years there should be more than $36 billion extra for education. So this is therefore not Gonski but the illusion I spoke of.
The budget papers indicate $2.8 billion of additional money for the National Plan for School Improvement, yet at the same time we can see in the coming years redirections from other programs—$258.5 million out of the National Partnership for Low Socio-economic Status School Communities; $411.9 million out of Empowering Local Schools; $405 million out of literacy and numeracy; $665 million out of the Reward for Great Teachers program; $203.2 million out of the Reward for School Improvements program; and the reduction of $1.182 billion in recurrent funding for non-government schools when comparing parameters under the Schools Assistance Act 2008. So this represents a reduction of $325.1 million. A cut is what this government stands for—way less than the $6.6 billion a year that Gonski requires. I would like to highlight the fact that Minister Garrett has not refuted the $325.1 million cut to other programs. For Western Australia the reduction through redirections or just cuts over the period out to financial year 2015-16 is $229.2 million less in federal funding. It really is a con, and it is typical of a government that talks big but achieves small. The only thing they are good at are grand announcements coupled with cliches and spin lines. Of course, people are on to it. I saw in TheAustralian today that the Gillard government's favourite catchword has been 'Gonski' for a long time and then it was switched to the far less catchy 'national schools improvement plan'. We await what question time today will bring from this government.
However, I was talking about Labor plans for the next three years. The government's plan is to redirect or cut existing spending so that they do not have to do much of the hard work in the budget. All the big money is out at 2018 and 2019, but of course nothing like the $6 billion a year required under Gonski. But the bigger money is beyond their time and beyond their responsibility to find the money for it—again, all promise, no delivery. Right now the federal government has cut school funding and requires the states to spend more. Labor promises to spend $9.8 billion on the National School Improvement Plan. Almost all of that money comes in 2018-19 and before that Labor delivers less money than now. Schools will not see any of the promised new federal funding until 2017, which is two federal elections away. Not only has school performance declined under this government, but the government's performance on education has also declined. The Labor government does not understand that the key to making better schools is better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more community engagement and more principal autonomy.
The empty promises of this government will not achieve this and neither will this legislation. For this reason we are introducing an amendment to the bill which looks at all aspects of the education system. We understand that all children must have the opportunity to have a good, quality education and that families must have the right to choose a school that fits their child. If parents wish to make a private contribution towards the cost of their child's education they should not be penalised for it. In an effort to fundraise and encourage private investment, schools should not be penalised either. This ties in with our belief that as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems. Furthermore, schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students. When it comes to funding, the coalition wants to ensure that every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government.
This country has had enough of this Labor government's failures. Education standards have fallen over the term of this Labor government and the way ahead is through a different approach. One of the first things we will do is to extend the current recurrent funding model for both government and non-government schools so that planning can continue through funding certainty. Another two years of existing funding arrangements will see indexation and National Partnership funding continue which will see that no school is worse off. Then we will negotiate and work with the states and territories. This will ensure that any agreement on a common per student funding benchmark takes account of the fiscal capacity of each state and territory. This will ensure that governments like Western Australia are not punished for their strong support for schools while also allowing others to reach benchmarks as and when circumstances allow. Our approach will also ensure that schools are not punished for taking steps to obtain alternative funding sources.
By way of contrast, the government as usual cannot be trusted to deliver what they promise or to tell the truth about policies. I say again that what the government offers is not Gonski: there is no extra $26 billion over the next four years under Gonski's plan; it is not in the forward estimates; it just is not true. Of the $9.8 billion it is not until 2018-19 that most of it flows, and that is two elections away. For the next three years there is a cut of $325 million. This therefore is a facade, an illusion, and everyone should look at the figures in the budget to see it. What makes it worse is that the Labor government has also made false claims that schools would be worse off under the coalition by $6.4 billion because of a politically-driven and fanciful government assumption about the likely indexation rate for school funding. The key benchmark is known as the average government school recurrent cost and that has averaged 5.8 per cent per year over the last 10 years. The Labor government mendaciously makes the assumption that we would allow the AGSRC to fall to three per cent. As usual nothing they say is true. Clearly, with recent funding announcements by states the AGSRC will return to almost six per cent.
In every respect, what the government says is wrong, and what the government delivers is not what it suggests. It outlines the spending in the distant future but do not outline the way to pay for it. It looks to me that the Labor Party has acknowledged that it cannot find the $26 billion over four years, and cannot even finance what it is talking about in the forward estimates.
We should not forget that Gonski handed down his review two years ago. There are now just 12 sitting days in the House and eight in the Senate in this parliament. How are schools meant to plan for next year when this government plans only for politics? This government is a fiasco in education and across all portfolios. The Prime Minister has established a 30 June deadline for all states and territories to sign up, so that she can have just one success story to campaign on in the election. But this is not a success; this is a demonstration of the driven pursuit of political success, and not educational outcomes. The government has intentionally delayed this to take the focus away from the figures and instead try to panic stakeholders into accepting its plan. The government's dodgy numbers and cuts to education in the next three years relate to its claim about a future Labor surplus. This is what it is all about—a government pursuing politics, driven by catchwords, with no idea of the ramifications for schools and school communities.
The government has failed to bring forth the detail. The government is just trying to push stakeholders into accepting what it says. Scrutiny of the figures reveals that this government is not about Gonski and is not about education—only politics.
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (12:36): I am very happy to stand on this side of the parliament and support the Australian Education Bill 2012. One of my favourite things to do as a local member is to visit and spend time at schools in my electorate. Whether it is standing in a classroom and talking to students about the parliament, attending a musical performance, celebrating the induction of new school leaders or congratulating students as they graduate, it is always a pleasure and an important insight into the challenges and possibilities of our education system.
The most obvious observation to make as I take part in those activities is the differences between schools, and the differences within schools. In the space of a week I might be at Mistake Creek State School, which is an hour's drive on a dirt road from the nearest town, with just a handful of students, and at Lakes Creek State School in Rockhampton, where the children of migrant meatworkers get the help they need to learn English. We also have the Rockhampton Grammar School, a P-to-12 boarding school renowned for its academic and sporting achievements. Then there is the Hall State School, which has a high proportion of students with special needs and which engages staff and students alike with an award-winning environmental education program. And, of course, there is Crescent Lagoon State School—the school my children attend and the one that I know as a parent rather than as an MP. This small snapshot of schools, which would be familiar to MPs right across the country, goes to illustrate that we ask a lot of our education system to meet the needs of students from vastly different places and backgrounds, and to overcome disparities in size, remoteness and so many other factors.
With so much at stake for individual students and our national wellbeing and prosperity, we need to know that our education systems in Australia can deliver on our expectations and the demands of the global economy. This is especially the case at this time of transition. Australia is on the threshold of a new era of prosperity, but we cannot assume that it will look like those times that have gone before. As set out in the Australia in the Asian century white paper, and core to the government's policy agenda, there is the promise of opportunities ahead of us, but not a guarantee.
Our future is not predetermined. It will be the product of how successful we are at converting our current advantages into the human capacity, adaptability and innovation that will be the currency we will need to prosper in the coming century. All those things start with education, and that is why the bill we are debating today is so important. It is important because it says to the community that this government gets it. We understand that our education system is not meeting the needs of today's students, let alone the generations that will be making their way in the world beyond this time of mining-generated wealth.
Not one of us can afford to ignore the results of international tests and comparisons that show Australia is failing to keep up with the educational achievements of our neighbours and competitors.
Over the past decade the PISA exams—the Program of International Student Assessment—coordinated by the OECD has shown an alarming drop in the comparative performance of Australian students. For example, in that period Australian students have fallen from second to seventh in reading and from fifth to 13th in maths. Another similar statistic that has been quoted often in this debate is that in test results released at the end of last year it was shown that Australian year-4 students were significantly outperformed in reading literacy by 21 countries out of the 45 that took part in the testing.
This government came to office with education as one of its key priorities and we have backed that up with investments to improve teaching and learning, as well as significant upgrading of school infrastructure. The international ranking results I have just quoted, however, demand an even greater national effort aimed at giving Australian students the education they need to secure their place in the world. The question is: what should that greater effort look like? This government understands that for each student to truly get what he or she needs from education and to truly realise their potential we need to do more than simply add more funding to the existing system to do more of what it currently does. Instead, we need a new funding framework built on a set of explicit principles and goals so that we can be sure of getting the maximum value for every extra dollar spent on education.
The Australian Education Bill 2012 lays out the legislative framework which will deliver more funding and resources to every school as part of the implementation of the National Plan for School Improvement, also enshrined within this bill. The purpose of this bill is made very clear in its preamble and it is something I fully subscribe to and wholeheartedly support:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
The quality of a student’s education should not be limited by where the student lives, the income of his or her family, the school he or she attends, or his or her personal circumstances.
The quality of education should not be limited by a school’s location, particularly those schools in regional Australia.
… … …
… future arrangements will be based on the needs of Australian schools and school students, and on evidence of how to provide an excellent education for school students. These arrangements will build on successful reforms to date.
These are all important statements of the value this government and, one would hope, this parliament places on education and its role in the lives of individual Australians and the prospects of our nation. They should not, however, come as a surprise to anyone because the words in this bill actually reflect the substance of Labor's education policy and programs since we came to office in 2007. In her second reading speech when this bill was introduced to the parliament the Prime Minister outlined the path we have been on, step by step putting in place the foundations for this significant and necessary reform of school education.
We knew when we came to power in 2007 that reform had to be built on evidence of what is happening in schools right now—which students go to which schools; what are the indicators of success or disadvantage within a school population; what is a school contributing to the educational performance of its students and how does that compare to other schools; and, which schools are successful in meeting the needs of their students and getting the best out of them? We could not answer those questions when we first came to government in 2007. So we set about the task of answering those questions and building an education system for the future. My School was developed to gather the information that could answer those questions and guide appropriate responses.
Over the same period our government has made massive investments in delivering extra resources into schools through national partnerships with states and other schooling systems. Schools put those resources to work in new approaches and programs to address poor literacy and numeracy, to lift the quality of teaching and to overcome disadvantage experienced by low-SES students. Using the data from My School and other measures we have worked to identify what works in schools. We can identify the elements of success and where more support is needed if those results are to be achieved in each and every school.
The Gonski review has confirmed that more support, more funding, is needed if we are to replicate the lift in standards and educational results seen in those National Partnership schools around the country. The Gonski review went further in recommending important new characteristics of school funding. Those characteristics are central to the fundamental reform of school funding that this government is committed to and they are given legislative force in this bill. The bill provides assurance that the Commonwealth will introduce a needs-based funding model for future Commonwealth funding. That funding will be provided on the basis of a schooling resource standard which will provide a base amount for all students, according to a formula that accounts for the costs associated with providing a high-quality education and additional loadings that address the costs associated with educational disadvantage. So schools will get the funding they need to meet the needs of their individual students, whether those students face disadvantage because they come to school with a disability or they attend a small, remote school or they experience other barriers linked to lower educational attainment. The Prime Minister explains in her speech that the schooling resource standard will be based on what it costs to educate a student at schools we know already get strong results.
I am proud to say that at least one of those benchmark schools is in my electorate of Capricornia, and it is the evidence I have seen at that school that makes me such a strong supporter of the Gonski model and this bill. Berserker Street State School has been on a remarkable journey in the time I have been the local member and especially since this government came to power. Most of that improvement in transformation has occurred since the special needs of the school's students and community were recognised and the school was allocated significant extra funding as part of the national partnership for low SES schools. Under the leadership of the Berserker principal, Rebecca Hack, and with the help of those extra resources, the school has been able to employ additional staff to support programs in literacy, numeracy and Indigenous engagement as well as special staff such as a social worker. There has been room in the budget for innovative teaching programs, including targeted diagnostic screening for things like oral-language skills and professional development for teachers and teachers' aides.
I have probably spoken about it in the House before but it would be no surprise to members to know that I have visited Berserker Street State School many times and seen for myself the commitment of the staff and the way students are responding to the efforts that are made to meet their individual educational and personal needs. You can actually sense the focus, engagement and enthusiasm of the students as you move from class to class, and I have got to say that it is not something I could have said about Berserker school 10 or 12 years ago. I visited the school just in the last couple of months with Senator Jacinta Collins and during that visit we were both invited to sit-in on a grade 1 reading group. A number of students jumped up to read aloud to us and one in particular, named Josh, was put on the spot and asked to read to us while being filmed for the local news bulletin and photographed by the local newspaper photographer. Josh did not skip a beat and he confidently treated us to a couple of pages of the book he was reading. It was only later that his proud teacher pulled us aside and told us that when Josh started prep a year earlier he had been identified as having almost no oral language skills, to the point where he could only put one or two words together. Poor oral-language skills are closely linked to difficulties in learning to read.
The support and specialised interventions that Berserker has had the resources to provide, thanks to its extra funding, have resulted in the progress we saw that day and the people of Rockhampton saw that night when Josh read to all of them on the evening news. This is all reflected more broadly in Berserker's data and is the reason that Berserker is amongst those excellent schools identified to formulate the schooling resource standard. Berserker school is the schooling resource standard and the national plan for school improvement in action and the results are truly inspirational. The point of the Berserker example is that every school needs to be resourced to respond to its students' needs and the community's expectations.
I have given that example because it means that we have seen in Rockhampton what can be achieved with extra investment in schools towards lifting standards of leadership, teaching and learning.
I was very disappointed to see today that the Premier of Queensland is rejecting the federal government's offer of the extra investment that has seen those results achieved at schools like Berserker, and others in my electorate and right around Queensland. Instead, what is being offered by the Queensland government—if it fails to sign up to the national school improvement plan, and if we go into the next election without the national school improvement plan having passed through this parliament and being on its way to being implemented as the funding model for Australian schools—will see cuts to schools in the state of Queensland, cuts to each and every school, at a time when there needs to be more investment in education.
Every student deserves to have an excellent education. These have always been core Labor beliefs, but now they are also national imperatives. That is why this bill commits the government to goals for the excellence, equity and international competitiveness of our schooling system and sets the framework for school funding to achieve those goals. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:51): In my electorate of Swan we have a wide range of schools. I see a former member for Swan in the chamber; he is now the member for Canning. I know he has an education background and was a teacher in my electorate as well. So I know how important education is to him.
Mr Randall: Cloverdale Primary School.
Mr IRONS: Cloverdale Primary School, he tells me. The diversity goes beyond the simple government and non-government distinction the Prime Minister often frames this debate around.
Mr Sidebottom: Ahem!
Mr IRONS: It is good to see the member for Braddon is awake today. I think the member for Braddon is trying to make the point that he was a teacher as well. The reality is: most schools have an element of public and private funding. As the shadow minister said, in the current Schools Assistance Act there are over 70 definitions relating to schooling. This bill before the House has only five definitions. The issue here is the government trying to make broad generalisations that simply do not fit with the detailed picture on the ground.
What we are debating today is a statement of principles—not a bill. It has no financial impact and it is not even legally enforceable. Perhaps this has something to do with the manner in which it was introduced—rapidly, at the end of last year, to try to convince the Australian people that there is an agenda for this government.
What the government has put out would be better put in a press release than a bill. It is an empty shell in a number of respects. For example, it lacks details on funding; it contains no details at all as to how much money will be available, or which level of government will be required to stump up for additional funding.
Too often, Labor's approach has led to politicisation of an important policy area which ought to be above politics, and I fear this will only worsen in the lead-up to their deadline of 30 June 2013. The politicisation has the potential to colour an appropriate and rational consideration of Labor's current offers to the state and territory governments.
I refer the House to comments in The Australian on 25 February:
WA Premier Colin Barnett said he believed the federal government was a 'small player'' in education and heavily criticised Ms Gillard's style of negotiation with the states.
'We have never indicated we would sign up to Gonski,' Mr Barnett told reporters in Perth.
'If the federal government has some proposal, they are very much the small player in education.
'We are not going to sit back and suddenly let the commonwealth take over the running of our schools.''
These concerns are shared by the schools themselves. We had the CSA state:
CSA supports the general principles of a Gonski-style approach. We cannot however give our full support to any proposal that has not fully been modelled and released for consultation.
… … …
We must express however our serious concern at the lack of detail about the achievement of this promise.
Should data modelling, and funding commitments not be provided to fulfil this undertaking our support would immediately be withdrawn.
I note Dennis Shanahan's piece on the front page of The Australian newspaper today, which says that the Queensland Premier has virtually ruled out the Queensland government's agreement to the Gonski funding by the Prime Minister's deadline. Furthermore, the article goes on to quote Mr Newman's letter to the Prime Minister, in which he refers to officials in her Treasury department as being intransigent, failing to negotiate constructively and unable to set out base education funding for the 2014 education year. The Queensland Premier told the Prime Minister that because of the intransigence of the federal government, even if agreement could be reached on the starting point, the flow-on effects would require substantial revision of the federal government's funding offer.
I notethat the Victorian government has described the negotiations as 'a farce' and 'puerile'. Even the South Australian Labor government has warned of concerns about funding for independent schools. Further to this, it has been reported by The Australian that:
Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon excoriated the commonwealth over its handling of the Gonski negotiations, claiming the reforms amounted to nothing more than a slogan.
In unusually strong language, Mr Dixon said he no longer trusted the federal government over the way it had conducted the negotiations.
He said that he was being forced to read in the media about key developments in what were meant to be confidential negotiations about the future of billions of dollars worth of education funding.
"This process has been a farce and it's been a sham," Mr Dixon told parliament.
We are not going to sign up to a slogan. We want a real funding deal. We are going to sign up to what's best for every student, school, family and taxpayer.
Senior government sources said Victoria would only now sign up to the Gonski reforms if there was a "deal breaking" offer by Canberra.
Mr Dixon, Catholic Education Commission Victoria executive director Stephen Elder and Independent Schools Victoria chief executive Michelle Green have written to the Gillard government asking for four-way negotiations to address funding proposals. This is believed to be due to existing discussions having collapsed.
"The current bilateral negotiations have not achieved results we would have liked," the trio wrote in a letter to School Education Minister Peter Garrett.
Mr Dixon's outburst makes it increasingly unlikely that Ms Gillard will be able to broker a truly national approach to the Gonski reforms. While Mr Dixon has not ruled out signing up to the reforms, he has sent the clearest possible message that Victoria's support is highly conditional.
Queensland is still holding out on the reforms while Western Australia says it is not signing.
The South Australian Premier, who took on Treasury in his January frontbench reshuffle, yesterday hosed down any expectation he was about to sign up to Gonski and was just waiting for the right time to announce it with the Prime Minister before next Thursday's state budget.
And rightly so—the recent budget confirmed a number of suspicion long held by the coalition. In short, the total amount of federal Commonwealth money devoted to education over the forward estimates period to 2016-17 has been reduced by approximately $1.5 billion.
While Budget Paper No. 21 indicates that $2.8 billion of additional money will be available over four years for the National Plan for School Improvement, NPSI, that spending is offset by concurrent reductions, redirections and savings of approximately $3.283 billion. Their total exceeds the additional amount that had been set aside for the NPSI by some $484 million. This means the Labor government will not contribute any additional money for education between now and 2016-17. In fact, it will contribute less over the same period than it otherwise would have. In addition, an examination of the relevant portfolio budget statement confirms further reductions to school-specific spending under the Schools Assistance Act 2008 by approximately $1 billion until 2016-17. The cumulative effect of these changes shows an intention to reduce spending over the forward estimates period by $1.5 billion from that which would otherwise have been spent absent of the NPSI.
What has become clear is that even if it manages to be re-elected for another two terms, the Labor government is not introducing Gonski. If it were, it would have committed the extra money Gonski called for. Far from increasing funding, the government has handed out a budget last month which reveals that Labor will reduce spending on schools by $325 million over the forward estimates from was forecast in the 2012-13 budget. What the government is doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul—except they are paying Paul a lesser amount. Overall, the government will spend $4.7 billion less on education, including higher education and vocational training, in the four years to 2016 than was budgeted last year.
I refer the House to some of the responses the government have received to their proposals. The lack of detail leaves many questions remaining. Where will the at least $6.5 billion per year the government floated come from? What programs will be cut and what taxes will the government increase to pay for it? If the leaked Gonski modelling shows 3,254 schools worse off, how much extra will it cost for every school to receive more funding as Ms Gillard has promised? When will the modelling be available showing the impact of this funding for each school? Will the Prime Minister guarantee no school will have to increase school fees as a result of the changes? Where is the detailed response to the 41 recommendations in the Gonski review? How much indexation will each school and school sector receive? What will be the benchmark funding per primary and secondary school student? How much funding per student will be allocated for students with a disability? Will this funding be portable between the government and non-government sectors? What, if any, future capital funding arrangements will be provided for schools? What new reporting requirements and other conditions will schools have to meet in order to qualify for government funding?
In the Southern Gazette newspaper, in my electorate, on 4 September 2012, in an article written by journalist Susanne Scolt, it was reported that 20 local schools could be faced with a combined funding loss of more than $8 million under federal government education plans. The article states that modelling based on data provided by the department of education to schools and state governments, based on the Gonski review, shows that 688 WA schools could emerge as potential losers, with Belmont City College, in my electorate 22nd on the list, projected to lose over $2.2 million. Other local schools in my electorate are also facing losses according to this news article include Como Secondary College, $975,185; Lathlain Primary School, $466,316; East Victoria Park Primary School, $293,926; Wesley College, $167,969; and Penrhos College, $85,458. In the article, local Kewdale resident Joe Mahon, who sends his children to Lathlain Primary School, was quoted:
"If these figures are true, then I imagine that this would be a substantial part of the school's budget," he said.
"The school is quite well equipped now but if we were to lose that money how would they expect to catch up on the technology of other schools in the area?"
Based on these figures, it is hardly surprising that schools and ministers are asking for more information.
I mentioned earlier the Independent Public Schools initiative from the Liberal government of Western Australia, and it is worth mentioning here as it will be a key plank of coalition education policy going forward. The Independent Public Schools initiative was introduced to give public schools choice, independence and freedom to provide for their communities' diverse education needs. Currently, 255 schools across Western Australia are operating, or are beginning to operate, as independent public schools. The IPS initiative empowers school communities by giving them greater capacity to shape the ethos, priorities and direction of their schools. I am on the board for Bannister Creek Primary School in Lynwood, in my electorate of Swan, which is an independent school. We visited with the shadow minister recently to show how the school would be developing a specialist in languages as a result of being granted independent school status.
In my electorate of Swan, 10 schools have become independent public schools since 2010, with six more electing to become independent in 2013. These schools assume greater responsibility for their own affairs and have greater flexibility to respond to their communities. The Western Australian government has recognised the great importance of government funded schools in our community by allowing very diverse schools to respond to the individual needs of the communities they service. By giving more power to the individual schools, programs can be tailored to meet the student needs of a particular enrolment area. School funding can be more wisely spent in line with the needs of the individual school, avoiding the rampant waste we have seen with the school halls program, Building the Education Revolution.
The standards for schools to become independent public schools are understandably rigorous. Every public school in Western Australia will be given the opportunity to be selected once they meet the high standards required to become an independent public school. This approach recognises that schools perform better, and achieve higher outcomes when granted flexibility to adapt to community and student needs in education. The approach also acknowledges some schools need more support than others when transitioning and provides guidance and expertise to ensure that schools and students around Western Australia are reaching their potential. Importantly as well, the IPS initiative provides parents, students, communities and schools with choice. Choice is incredibly important for schools as no two schools are the same in terms of funding needs, infrastructure needs, and student and staff needs.
The bill before the House today is unclear as to whether or not additional administrative burdens would be placed on schools with regard to funding, creating more red tape and a less efficient school system. While independent public schools are funded on the same basis as all Western Australian public schools, the ongoing funding uncertainty and the lack of a proposed funding model could inhibit some schools in their transition to become independent. All in all, this bill does little or nothing to improve education outcomes, but it has afforded many coalition members the opportunity to expose the hollowness of the government's budget and the hollowness of their commitments to the Gonski report. The focus needs to shift. Differences need to be made in the classroom rather than the bureaucracy. Our schools and children deserve better.
Debate adjourned.
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber with amendments; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Federation Chamber's amendments—
(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 2, insert:
2A Object of this Act
The object of this Act is to establish the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to administer the National Strategic Plan, which aims to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres in order to eliminate asbestos‑related disease in Australia.
(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), after "asbestos awareness", insert ", education and information sharing,".
(3) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 8 and 9), omit the definition of National Strategic Plan, substitute:
National Strategic Plan has the meaning given by section 5A.
(4) Page 3 (after line 16), after Part 1, insert:
Part 1A—National Strategic Plan
5A National Strategic Plan
The National Strategic Plan means the plan that:
(a) is known as the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness; and
(b) aims to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres in order to eliminate asbestos‑related disease in Australia; and
(c) addresses the following priority areas:
(i) the systematic identification of material containing asbestos in the built environment and of asbestos dump sites;
(ii) systems, timelines and processes for the prioritised safe removal of material containing asbestos from public and commercial buildings and the safe disposal of such material;
(iii) measures to assist the residential sector to minimise the risks of asbestos, including raising awareness, education and mechanisms for identifying and classifying risks associated with asbestos;
(iv) improving education and information about asbestos;
(v) improving asbestos safety;
(vi) improving the sharing of information about asbestos and asbestos safety; and
(d) deals with any other relevant matters.
(5) Clause 12, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), omit "advice, makes recommendations or issues guidelines", substitute "advice or makes recommendations".
(6) Clause 12, page 7 (line 16), omit "or guidelines".
(7) Clause 12, page 7 (after line 16), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) The CEO must comply with any guidelines issued by the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council under section 29.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the extent that:
(a) compliance with the guidelines would be inconsistent with the CEO's performance of functions or exercise of powers under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 in relation to the Agency; or
(b) the guidelines relate to the CEO's performance of functions or exercise of powers under the Public Service Act 1999 in relation to the Agency.
(8) Page 11 (after line 31), at the end of Division 3, add:
23A Delegation
(1) The CEO may, in writing, delegate all or any of the CEO's functions or powers to a person who is a member of the staff of the Agency.
(2) In exercising any powers or performing any functions under the delegation, the delegate must comply with any directions of the CEO.
(9) Clause 29, page 14 (lines 12 and 13), omit "asbestos safety, if requested to do so by the Minister.", substitute "asbestos safety; and".
(10) Clause 29, page 14 (after line 13), at the end of subclause (1), add:
(c) to monitor the implementation of the National Strategic Plan by Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments; and
(d) to provide advice, and make recommendations, about the National Strategic Plan and annual operational plans.
(11) Clause 29, page 14 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert:
(2A) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council must not issue guidelines that are inconsistent with any directions given under section 14 (Minister's directions to CEO).
(2B) Any guidelines that are inconsistent with a direction of the kind referred to in subsection (2A) have no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.
(12) Clause 29, page 14 (lines 20 and 21), omit subclause (4).
(13) Page 15 (after line 5), at the end of Division 1, add:
30A Committees
(1) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council may, by writing, establish committees to assist the Council in the performance of its functions.
(2) A committee is to consist of such persons as the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council determines.
(3) If the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council establishes a committee under subsection (1), the Council must, in writing, determine:
(a) the committee's terms of reference; and
(b) the terms and conditions of appointment of the members of the committee; and
(c) the procedures to be followed by the committee.
(4) An instrument made under subsection (1) or (3) is not a legislative instrument.
(14) Clause 31, page 16 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraphs (c) and (d), substitute:
(c) 4 members representing State, Territory and local governments; and
(d) 1 member representing the interests of workers in Australia; and
(e) 1 member representing the interests of employers in Australia; and
(f) 2 other members.
(15) Clause 32, page 16 (after line 18), after paragraph (2)(c), insert:
(ca) the member representing the interests of workers in Australia; or
(cb) the member representing the interests of employers in Australia; or
(16) Clause 32, page 16 (line 21), omit "31(a) or (d)", substitute "31(a), (d), (e) or (f)".
(17) Clause 32, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) A person is eligible for appointment as a Council member under paragraph 31(d) only if:
(a) the person has been nominated for the appointment by an authorised worker body; and
(b) the Minister agrees to the person being appointed.
(5) If an authorised worker body nominates a person but the Minister does not agree to the person being appointed, an authorised worker body (which may be the same or a different body) may nominate another person for the appointment.
(6) The Minister may authorise a body for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) if the Minister considers that the body represents the interests of workers in Australia. If the Minister does so, the body is an authorised worker body.
(7) A person is eligible for appointment as a Council member under paragraph 31(e) only if:
(a) the person has been nominated for the appointment by an authorised employer body; and
(b) the Minister agrees to the person being appointed.
(8) If an authorised employer body nominates a person but the Minister does not agree to the person being appointed, an authorised employer body (which may be the same or a different body) may nominate another person for the appointment.
(9) The Minister may authorise a body for the purposes of subsections (7) and (8) if the Minister considers that the body represents the interests of employers in Australia. If the Minister does so, the body is an authorised employer body.
(18) Clause 37, page 20 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) The Council member:
(a) must not be present during any deliberation by the Council on the matter; and
(b) must not take part in any decision of the Council with respect to the matter.
(19) Heading to Division 4, page 22 (line 1), omit "Meetings of", substitute "Procedures of".
(20) Page 22 (after line 10), at the end of Division 4, add:
41A Quorum
(1) At a meeting of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council, a quorum is constituted by:
(a) 2 members appointed under paragraph 31(c) (members representing State, Territory and local governments); and
(b) any 4 other Council members.
(2) However, if:
(a) a member is required by section 37 not to be present during the deliberations or to take part in any decision of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council with respect to a particular matter; and
(b) when the member leaves the meeting concerned, there is no longer a quorum present;
the remaining Council members at the meeting constitute a quorum for the purposes of any deliberation or decision at that meeting with respect to that matter.
(21) Page 22, at the end of Division 4 (after proposed section 41A), add:
41B Voting at meetings
(1) A question arising at a meeting of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council is to be determined by a majority of the votes of the Council members present and voting.
(2) The person presiding at a meeting has:
(a) a deliberative vote; and
(b) if necessary, also a casting vote.
(22) Page 22, at the end of Division 4 (after proposed section 41B), add:
41C Minutes
The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council must keep minutes of its meetings.
(23) Page 22, at the end of Division 4 (after proposed section 41C), add:
41D Conduct of meetings
The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council may regulate proceedings at its meetings as it considers appropriate.
Note: Section 33B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contains further information about the ways in which Council members may participate in meetings.
(24) Page 22, at the end of Division 4 (after proposed section 41D), add:
41E Decisions without meetings
(1) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council is taken to have made a decision at a meeting if:
(a) without meeting, a majority of the Council members entitled to vote on the proposed decision indicate agreement with the decision; and
(b) that agreement is indicated in accordance with the method determined by the Council under subsection (2); and
(c) all the Council members were informed of the proposed decision, or reasonable efforts were made to inform all the members of the proposed decision.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only if the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council:
(a) has determined that it may make decisions of that kind without meeting; and
(b) has determined the method by which Council members are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Council member is not entitled to vote on a proposed decision if the member would not have been entitled to vote on that proposal if the matter had been considered at a meeting of the Council.
(4) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council must keep a record of decisions made in accordance with this section.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ) (13:06): The question is that the amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (13:06): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Education Bill 2012
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 is of the view that:
(1) the Objects of the bill should be amended to read:
(a) families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs;
(b) all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education;
(c) student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socio-economic need;
(d) students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling;
(e) as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems;
(f) schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students;
(g) every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government;
(h) schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future;
(i) parents who wish to make a private contribution toward the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment; and
(j) funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.
(2) the definitions in the bill should be supplemented to define a non-systemic school as a non-government school that is not a systemic school, and a systemic school as an approved school that is approved as a member of an approved school system; and
(3) the bill should provide that the current funding arrangements be extended for a further two years, to guarantee funding certainty for schools and parents."
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (13:07): I speak in support of the Australian Education Bill 2012 and against the amendment moved by the member for Sturt. This bill provides the framework for a needs-based school-funding model that incorporates the work of the Review of Funding for Schooling, better known as the Gonski review. A benchmark funding rate will be established that will provide for the costs associated with providing high-quality education. In addition, loadings for disadvantage will be added to cover the educational costs associated with that. With the stated aim of ensuring that Australia is in the top five international performers in reading, mathematics and science by 2025, this bill provides the legislative framework that opens the door.
The National Plan for School Improvement is the basis for lifting both school and student results by addressing five core reform directions: quality teaching; quality learning; empowering school leadership; transparency and accountability; and meeting student need. In addition, the loadings for educational disadvantage will provide extra funding for those students in need of extra support, covering areas such as: students with a disability; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; students with low English proficiency due to immigration circumstances or ethnic background; students of low-socioeconomic status; rural, regional and remote schools; and small schools that have higher costs due to a lower number of students. This extra funding will be provided as grants to the states and territories to assist schools regardless of the sector—that is, government, Catholic and independent schools across the board. As tied funding, it is dependent upon the individual states and territories agreeing to the National Plan for School Improvement. Upon agreement, each state and territory will continue to run its own education system and the Commonwealth will provide increased funding over what is currently available.
As chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment I presented the advisory report on this bill to the House on 29 May. This report was written after the committee had held public hearings in Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne to hear from witnesses. In addition, the committee received 53 submissions from interested parties—although I must say that, somewhat disappointingly, few were received from state or territory governments. The committee's report recommended that this bill be passed whilst noting that the amendments that have been foreshadowed will introduce a funding formula and a variation to clause 10 of the bill to provide legal enforceability.
It is fair to say that the current model of school funding in Australia is a mess. It is a system that is broken, that does not direct funds to where they are most needed and that does not take enough account of those that it was put in place for—that is, the students. Around $12.9 billion of Commonwealth funding was directed to schools in 2012-13; 64.6 per cent of this was for non-government schools, whilst the states and territories provided most of the funding to their respective government school systems. Although constitutionally the states and territories have the responsibility for school education, the Commonwealth has been providing funding to state schools since 1964 in various forms. This funding initially started as capital grants for science laboratories and equipment but were extended five years later to cover the building of library facilities and then a bit later on to cover general capital works. Commonwealth recurrent funding of non-government schools first occurred in 1970 under the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969. This funding was extended by the Whitlam Labor government as a result of the recommendations of the committee chaired by Professor Peter Karmel. Therefore, since 1974 both government and non-government schools have received a percentage of their recurrent funding from the Commonwealth.
Currently schools receive funding under the National Schools Specific Purpose Payment, national partnerships and Commonwealth own-purpose expenses. These rates vary greatly between the sectors and I think it would be more than fair to say that almost all users of the education system would struggle to identify both the source and the actual amount of funds that are made available to schools. Currently, the Commonwealth provides 10 per cent of the average government school recurrent costs, or AGSRC, for government schools in the states and territories through the NSSPP. This rate was increased by the Labor government as from 2009 from 8.9 per cent to 10 per cent for government primary school students. To my great dismay, my state, Victoria, did not flow this funding directly through to schools. In dollar terms this funding was worth around $100 per student per year, and many of my local schools were counting on this funding as a way of employing extra specialist staff for a few hours per week—staff that were needed to overcome educational disadvantage within their schools.
There are many national partnership programs that provide additional funding for government and non-government schools with different objectives and time frames of operation. National partnership funding is not recurrent funding; it is provided to achieve specific objectives agreed between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Many of these national partnerships will expire in the near future, having provided the funding to achieve their agreed outcomes. These national partnerships include the Digital Education Revolution program, which has provided hundreds of thousands of computers to secondary schools and which expires on 30 June this year. They also include the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality, which expires at the end of this year; the National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy, which expires at the end of this year; the National Partnership Agreement on Youth Attainment and Transitions, which expires at the end of this year; the National Partnership Agreement on Empowering Local Schools, which expires on 30 June 2014; the National Partnership Agreement for More Support for Students with Disabilities, which also expires on 30 June 2014; and the National Partnership Agreement on Low Socio-Economic Status School Communities, which expires on 30 June 2015. Some national partnership agreements extend beyond these dates, such as the National Partnership Agreement on Rewards for Great Teachers, the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, and the national partnership agreement on reward for school improvement.
The non-government schools receive their national schools specific purpose payments through the Schools Assistance Act 2008. That provides for both recurrent and capital funding. This also includes targeted programs such as a literacy, numeracy and special needs program, the English as a second language new arrivals program and the country areas program. In addition, there is funding provided for Indigenous students through another program called the Indigenous supplementary assistance. There are also loadings for non-government schools in remote areas that range from five per cent to 20 per cent of the school's SES funding rate for general recurrent grants.
Currently there are 46 different funding rates under the SES system for recurrent grants to non-government schools. Introduced by the Howard Liberal government in 2001, this system calculates general recurrent funding for students, on the basis of the SES index that includes the three components: income, education and occupation and also the student's residential address within a census collection district. SES funding for non-government schools can vary from as low as 13.7 per cent up to 70 per cent using these measures. However, special schools and special assistance schools receive the maximum rate as do the majority of Indigenous student schools. Additionally some schools receive different SES funding rates due to the introduction of that system in 2001. These schools receive more than the calculated rate through mechanisms called funding maintained or funding guaranteed. At the start of 2012 there were 1,642 non-government schools funded according to their SES score, 1,075 funding maintained schools and five schools funding guaranteed.
This is a short version of the funding examples that I have just listed and to me it is one of the greatest reasons why we need to change our system of funding school education in Australia. The National Plan for School Improvement has many components but I believe that the transparency and accountability components are just as valuable, if not more valuable, than providing extra funding for the states and territories to distribute among their education systems.
It is even harder to explain or account for a particular dollar of funding than it is to describe the various funding programs that make up our school education funding system in Australia today. If I was to look at that from the ground level, the school gate level, and then what I have just been through in this speech, I would honestly have no chance of convincing a school parent as to what all these acronyms mean, where all these programs take things and how they benefit their particular son or daughter at a school. I really hope that with this bill we manage to simplify some of this jargon that has built up over the many, many years that in some cases have isolated our education system from the users of it because, to me, the most important thing about our education system is that our students get a great education but at the same time the parents and the taxpayers—if that is the right description, and I think it is—know what we are doing with the dollars that we put into education. Just going through the list that I have, and that is only a short list, it is not much of a surprise that most people think they know what happens in the education sphere when it comes to funding but in reality they do not know those sorts of details.
The National Plan for School Improvement introduces the schooling resource standard. This provides a base amount of $9,271 per primary school student and and $12,193 per secondary school student. In addition to these amounts, schools can receive more funding through the various loadings that are introduced with the National Plan for School Improvement. These loadings are: the low SES loading that ranges from $695 up to $4,635 for a primary school student and from $914 up to $6,096 for a secondary school student; an Indigenous loading that ranges from $$1,854 up to $11,125 for a primary school student and from $2,439 up to $14,631 for a secondary school student. There is also a loading for students with limited English skills set at 10 per cent and a location loading for regional and remote schools ranging from 10 per cent up to 80 per cent, dependent upon where the school is situated. There is a size loading for smaller schools that ranges from $150,000 for a primary school with up to 200 students to $240,000 for a secondary school with up to 500 students. There will be a loading for students with disability that will be phased in from 2015, once the required data has been collected.
All of this funding will be indexed every year, but the most important point to make is that none of the above will apply to states or territories that do not sign on to the National Plan for School Improvement. My own state of Victoria, which has yet to sign up, stands to lose $4.2 billion of school funding over the next six years if the current school funding system remains in place. That is around $3 billion less for government schools or an average of $1.9 million per school. It is also $1.2 billion less for non-government schools or an average of $1.7 million per school. These figures are large but they mean so much to individual schools.
There are many individual schools in my electorate—and of course in the electorates of other members as well—that are really great schools that need more on the inside. This government has done some fantastic things on the outside of schools with infrastructure and has had some great national partnerships run, but the recurrent funding of schools is the issue that comes back time and time again. It is now over 5½ years since I started in this job and it has been an issue that I think I have spoken about on every occasion that I have visited my local schools. It is always, 'How are we going to fund the extra teachers we need and provide the services that we need to make sure that the children that come to our school'—whether it be government or non-government—'get the best education possible?'
I do not think there is a huge amount of disagreement with that statement. I think the disagreement comes from how we achieve that. What we have now with the National Plan for School Improvement is a plan that is laid out based upon the Gonski report that provides that pathway to the future. I note that New South Wales and the ACT have both signed up to that. I congratulate both states for being far-sighted and doing that. I certainly hope my home state of Victoria also follows that same path. The Australian Education Bill establishes the National Plan for School Improvement that will fund all schools through a fairer system based on the needs of individual students whilst providing extra assistance where it is most needed. It is warmly welcomed, and I commend this bill to the House.
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (13:22): I rise to speak in support of the Australian Education Bill 2012. Much like the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Broadband Network, the Australian Education Bill is a landmark initiative of this federal Labor government. As a former teacher and principal for 30 years prior to entering parliament, education and the wellbeing of young people is a particular passion of mine as I know it is of yours, Deputy Speaker O'Neill. Gaining knowledge, new insight and experiences are central to the human quest for fulfilment, and our schools play a vital role in prospering that human quest. It is a great privilege to be part of a government that is taking action to strengthen and support that nexus in everyone's lives.
The Australian Education Bill implements federal Labor's National Plan for School Improvement and is core to our education endeavours. This plan is the result of the federal Labor government commissioning in 2010 the review of funding for schooling, headed by David Gonski AC, with the aim to create better schools for our kids. Prior to this Australia had not conducted a thorough review of our schools funding system for 40 years The review team received over 7,000 written submissions, visited 39 schools and met with 70 education groups. The report, therefore, is informed, comprehensive and overall quite critical of our current funding system—one that is inadequate for the 21st century. In my opinion it is not just broken; it is mind-boggling in its complexity and shameful in its ability to be manipulated. In addition, under our current system, the federal indexation is linked to how much states and territories spend on their schools systems each year. As state Liberal governments slash school funding as they have in NSW particularly, Commonwealth funding to every school is impacted. This year, our indexation dropped from 5.9 to 3.9 per cent, which will only worsen. But I am pleased to say New South Wales has now come into the scheme. But it is important to know that, if indexation falls as projected, our schools would have been around $2.1 billion worse off in a few short years.
The review is informing the steps our government needs to take to improve our education system. Our plan requires a multibillion-dollar injection into our national schools education system. Our plan is ambitious; but, in order for our students today to be the global citizens and problem solvers in the Asian century, strong action is required now. It is heartening that the NSW government has officially signed up to the federal government's National Plan for School Improvement, which will deliver an additional $5 billion to New South Wales schools. This will benefit all schools in Newcastle and the Hunter region. Unfortunately, those opposite have committed to scrapping the agreement if they ever gain government, believing that a broken funding system is adequate for the children of Australia.
Regrettably, Australia's performance in international education league tables is in decline. Globally we rank highly in mathematics, science and literacy; however, we also have a wide disparity of up to three full schooling years between our highest achievers and our lowest. World leaders in education such as South Korea, Singapore and Finland show far less inconsistent results amongst peer groups. It is worth noting here that after International Women's Day Australia moved to highest in the world in educational attainment for women. I for one would like that to continue, and I know the extra effort that has been put in to make that so.
The average year 9 student from a struggling family is around two full years behind their peers in the best performing quarter in reading and mathematics. Over the past decade Australia has fallen from second to seventh in reading. We have also fallen from fifth to 13th in mathematics. As countries overtake us, obviously their competitive advantage over Australia increases. Our task is now to ensure that no child's education is neglected and to prepare them for a high-skilled and high-paid employment opportunity that our modern economy will demand.
The Australian Education Bill sets out three broad goals: for our schools to provide an excellent quality of education for all students; for our school system to be equitable; and for our nation to be ranked in the top 5 countries in the world in reading, science and mathematics by the year 2025, providing high-quality and high-equity education. Those are goals that everyone should aspire to and support.
The Prime Minister has rightly dubbed this our national crusade. A world-class education ought to be not just accessible and attainable but an inalienable right in such a fortunate country as ours. Our plan will provide a better funding system based on the individual needs of every student in every school. It will provide teachers and principals the support required to deliver on our key objectives through increased funding, resources and training opportunities from pre-service teachers through to principals. Additional support will be given to schools that require a performance boost, with emphasis on resource allocation for disadvantaged students. Higher entry requirements for trainee teachers will be introduced, ensuring that those in the teaching profession are in the top 30 per cent of Australia's population for literacy and numeracy.
Teaching is a very demanding profession, as my experience shows. I think I spent 12 years as a demonstration teacher and, of course, many years supervising students in practicums, and I can only say that there were times I particularly knew someone was not a suitable candidate for education. The system made it very hard if you made the recommendation that this person was not suitable for taking the lives of children in their hands. I am afraid it was not easy to have that acted on by others, but it is terribly important. You would not like to see teachers come into the system who are not suitable. I really do favour a system that not only looks at attainments but also looks like medical entry schemes such as are at the University of Newcastle, which looks at suitability and the commitment levels of those people.
I also am pleased to see that in our system beginning teachers will have a reduced teaching load, allowing them more time and flexibility to plan lessons thoroughly. They will also be paired with experienced mentor teachers who can guide them, and that really is a fabulous commitment. They will also be trained in the management of disruptive students, ensuring that no students are disadvantaged by the negative dominance of disruptive students. I look back on my first year as a teacher. Due to a flood, I was sent to a local school and became a teacher of a class of 30 students who were behaviourally disturbed. As a first-year-out teacher, I can tell you that was very, very difficult. They were from all different schools. I would never like to see a beginning teacher put in that situation. But in my last year of school I was principal of a school with a behavioural intervention unit. I guess it became a specialty, for obvious reasons.
Teachers will undergo annual performance reviews to meet national teaching standards, helping them to improve their practice and deliver the best results for students. My personal view is that peer review is always a wonderful exercise for teachers. Working as part of a team, peer review is a very positive process and not a punitive process. Additionally, teachers and principals will be able to access ongoing training linked to the national professional standards. There is no nobler vocation or profession than teaching. When done well it is the most generous of vocations. The more we invest in teachers the more our whole nation will benefit.
We have also committed that no school will lose funding. Instead, we will see consistent funding for all schools, with benchmark funding for each student based on the cost of delivering education at high-performing schools. Thank goodness we are setting the base level for education per student that is equivalent to a high standard. Having spent most of my 30 years of teaching time in disadvantaged schools, I know the inequity that exists. If this inequity is not addressed, for example by this education bill, it is an inequity that will see a downward spiral for this nation and for young people.
We will also see that benchmark funding complemented by additional funding based on loadings for low-socioeconomic students, Indigenous students, students with disabilities, students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, as well as being determined by the size and the location of the school the student attends. That is just so eminently sensible. You have to wonder why it did not happen before. I think I know why it did not happen before—too many years of conservative governments that were not particularly interested in equity.
Contrast our plan with the attitude shown by those opposite. In a 2012 Lateline interview the opposition education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, denied that socioeconomic background affects student outcomes. I could not believe it. I could not believe that that correlation was not understood by someone who aspires to be an education minister in this country. They certainly do not understand how necessary it is to give those students a boost and be on an equal playing field with their peers. Education should not be about chance, luck or postcodes. A high-quality education is a right for all young people, regardless of their circumstances in life. That is what Labor governments and Labor reform agendas are all about.
Under our plan principals will be given greater powers to run their own schools, like hiring and controlling the budget. I agree that principals know their schools best: their classrooms, teachers, students and resources—certainly better than bureaucrats in another city. There is an assumption that every principal is a great educational leader, an effective business manager, an effective asset manager, an effective risk manager, a diplomat in community engagement and satisfaction, an expert in media and marketing, and an all-round genius. Well we need to make sure that principals have the skills needed to be all of that in this 21st century.
I want to talk about my experience regarding merit selection and developing every teacher. Merit selection is a good process but it just as important to make sure every teacher is the best they can be. That was of vital importance. One of the greatest joys for me was seeing a teacher regain their love of teaching and stay in their career. I am very much for the professional development of every teacher and every principal.
It is important that additional information be added to the MySchool website, including details regarding school finance; the number of teachers accredited at different levels; results of student, parent and teacher surveys; NAPLAN proficiency levels reached by students; post-school destinations, such as work and university; year 12 attainment rates; the school's individual improvement plan; and attendance data. I am all for data, having had a supervisor who insisted on that. I know the benefit of data, but it has to be well-rounded data contributed by every school to give that personal flavour. I always say to constituents who ask about choosing a school: 'Yes, you should look at the data, but then go and visit yourself. Schools have wonderful cultures and a walk through a school will tell you whether that is the right school for your children.' I also say to them that it is far better to enrol at your local school so your child is part of the local community, so make sure you make that a priority. In this country today families experience greater mobility and certainly across states we need more harmonisation, which this legislation also includes.
Our reform agenda comes in the wake of: a $1.7 billion loss out of the state education system in New South Wales, a funding freeze that just happened on Catholic schools in particular, 1,800 jobs lost in education support, 9.5 per cent increases to TAFE fees and significant cuts to TAFE programs. These are cuts that do affect every school and every student in the state. The local state members should be ashamed. We cannot allow those cuts to permeate our communities. Recently we also saw the Australian Education Union speak out against those savage cuts in New South Wales. They urged the New South Wales government to put aside politics and to fund the system—investment 'which thus far has been lacking'. It does take every state to make Gonski real and to put the Australian Education Bill into effect. I urge all states to do that.
Federal Labor has a strong track record when it comes to education. Our government has delivered the greatest investment in school infrastructure since World War II through the Building the Education Revolution program. There is a myth that that was not effective. Every school in my electorate ran an effective program. Every principal stepped up and made sure that those resources were well spent and the outcomes were exemplary. I can only say to those people who bleat about it: 'Why didn't you get involved? Why didn't you make sure it was well-managed in your schools?'
What a wonderful investment. I never saw those sorts of facilities in all of my 30 years of teaching and in education as a principal. It is an absolute blessing to go now into schools and know that children finally have 21st century facilities to match the 21st century new teaching methods that are so important. There are people who think that nothing has changed since they went to school, but the children have changed, their whole experience levels have changed and the context has changed. We are in the Asian century.
I am very proud to be part of a federal Labor government that has already invested over $150 million into Newcastle's schools and the education of young people. I thank the minister for his recent visit to Newcastle and the Prime Minister for her passion and commitment to education. It is a very exciting time for us. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (13:37): This bill, the Australian Education Bill 2012, is a very brief document. At 1,400 words, it contains fewer words than were contained in the honourable member's speech or will likely be contained in my remarks. It sets out some worthy objectives, acknowledging that all students should be entitled to an excellent education regardless of where they live or their income. It notes that, if Australia is to be a prosperous nation with a high standard of living, the performance of our schools must continuously improve and so forth. All of those are worthy goals.
But it does not have a number in it; it does not set out a plan; and it finally says, in proposed section 10—which, I guess, summarises this or discloses that it is essentially a political document—that this act does not create rights or duties that are legally enforceable in judicial proceedings, and a failure to comply with this act does not affect the validity of any decision. It is at best a statement of intent so general as to be barely worth debating, but nonetheless we are here discussing education. I think we should be focusing on the real issues in education as opposed to the warm words and noble goals of this bill which are expressed, as I said, in such general terms that it is very difficult to have a debate about them.
A lot of this debate has been going on in the context of the so-called Gonski reforms. I have to say that it is a matter of some concern to me that my old friend David Gonski has become not simply a leading business figure and great lawyer, but also now a proper noun. Indeed, on occasions he has become a verb. It is a very disturbing development for a gentleman of his standing. Whether he is going to be decapitalised as the next step in his grammatical progression is yet to be seen. But the point about the Gonski review and the Gonski report is that it essentially identified—fairly, I think—the need for additional financial resources to be made available for schools and students who are getting inadequate resources given their particular needs, whether that be not coming from an English-speaking household, poverty, an Indigenous background or so forth. Again, in general terms, who would argue with that?
But the government has gone from taking these valuable insights from the Gonski review to claiming it is implementing them, when what Gonski was saying was that there should be more money invested in education. And yet the government seems now to be employing—this is a government which has promised and failed to deliver many surpluses—what can only be described as accounting tricks to make it appear as if there is more money going into the education system, when there is not. The fact is, over the forward estimates, the government is removing nearly $3.1 billion from education funding through various redirections of national partnership arrangements and reductions in recurrent funding for non-government schools, while only returning roughly $2.8 billion in new spending over the same period. That is giving with one hand and taking with the other, and we have heard Mr Gonski himself lamenting the way in which the government is cutting funding for higher education as part of this shuffling of money from one pocket into another.
Spending money on education is one thing, but it is not enough to simply spend the money without looking for outcomes. The critical issue, if you look at the big picture for Australia, is this: we are moving into a vastly more competitive world than ever before. We are no longer competing with low-wage economies doing low-skill jobs. We now have low-wage economies doing very high-skill jobs and developing very sophisticated products. The internet has made more and more of our economy trade exposed, so not only are higher-skill occupations in Australia being competed against by a broader range of countries—many of them with a lower wage regime and lower incomes than Australia—but the internet has also made many businesses, industries and jobs, which used not to be trade exposed, trade exposed. Think of the retail sector. Ten years ago it would not have occurred to us that retail was competing in a global market, yet virtually every category of retail is now competing globally. So how do we maintain a high-income, developed economy in Australia, with a generous social welfare safety net?
We can only do that by raising our productivity and competitiveness, and that means better and better education and higher and higher levels of skills. But it is not enough merely to throw money at the problem and hope that will solve it. We have tried that and it has failed. The reality is this: under Labor, all we have seen is a decline in Australia's educational outcomes. In Australia, educational spending per student has already risen, in real terms, over 40 per cent in the past decade; yet according to the OECD PISA rankings, our outcomes have declined from among the strongest in the world in 2000 to still fairly good in 2009, but well behind a leading group of five school systems—four of them in East Asia. Under this government's watch, therefore, we have seen education spending increase and student performance fall.
Where Labor thinks it can just throw money at education, cross its fingers and hope it can improve, the coalition knows we can do better. We do better by focusing on the teacher, on choice, on incentivising and on rewarding teachers. I refer to a paper, published in October 2003—so it is almost 10 years old—on this topic by John Hattie, from the University of Auckland. It makes a very powerful point: 'The greatest source of variance in terms of the performance of any student is the teacher.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Yunupingu, Dr M
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:45): Our nation pauses, as does this parliament, with the loss earlier today of Mr Yunupingu—a very unexpected loss to the Northern Territory and to his Yolngu people. Mr Yunupingu was a leader, a giant in this nation and a leader in music. Many will remember his contributions with Yothu Yindi—'mother and child'—and his song Treaty, which, in 1992, stopped a nation and has become an anthem in beer gardens ever since.
He opened the eyes of Australians to the needs of Aboriginal Australia. He was the first Yolngu man with a university degree. He became a teacher, assistant principal and principal in Yirrkala. He went on to be recognised in the ARIA Hall of Fame in December, last year. Tragically, though, in 2007 he was diagnosed with chronic renal failure, a battle that has tied him to thrice-weekly dialysis for a number of years, both in Darwin and, more recently, in his homeland.
He unceasingly had a passion for fighting renal failure. As recently as a month ago he convened a two-day meeting in his own community to find a regional solution to this scourge that afflicts Aboriginal Australia. He will be remembered for his music. He leaves a wife, Gurruwun, his six daughters and his five grandsons. As he said in his very own words:
I am … Yunupingu. I am a crocodile man. I am also the song writer and lead singer with the band Yothu Yindi. My name Yunupingu means 'rock', a rock that stands against time. Fire is my clan symbol. Fire is my life force.
We must connect with old people, we need to tap into their wisdom. The hearts of Aboriginal women are crying for their culture.
Our nation today cries out for him and supports him, his people and his community at this great loss.
Greenway Electorate: Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:46): I rise to commend the fantastic fundraising efforts of the Greenway community in supporting the Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea this year and to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of such a great initiative.
On 19 May I had the pleasure of attending Kings Langley Adventist Aged Care for their annual Biggest Morning Tea event. A big thank you must go to Julie Summers and Christine Khan and all their team for their efforts in putting together such a great day and for raising vital funds for the Cancer Council. The Kings Langley Lions Club must also be commended for their great work in helping organise the event and generally for the selfless work they do in the Kings Langley area.
On 23 May I also joined the Lalor Park Community Garden's Biggest Morning Tea at the Lalor Park Community Centre with members of the local community. It was great to see so many residents in attendance, despite the inclement weather. And a big thank you must go to Lalor Park Community Garden's public officer, Rebecca Lewis, for organising such a successful event and also to the CommonGroundz Cafe and its manager, Nathan Marshall, for providing the excellent coffee on the day.
And this Thursday the Blacktown Advocate will be hosting its annual Biggest Morning Tea event. I am sorry I will not be able to attend. However, a big thank you must go to its editor and my constituent, Joanne Vella, for her commitment to another great event. I had the pleasure of joining this event last year where I was the successful bidder at its auction. I am sure this week's event will be even bigger and better than ever.
Throughout the Greenway electorate many organisations and individuals have chipped in for the Biggest Morning Tea over the past 20 years. I want to praise them all for their efforts and generosity.
Economy
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:48): I rise to speak on the motion that was previously brought before this place by the member for Lyne. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr Tune who promised a surplus over 500 times; it was Treasurer Wayne Swan and the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promising to deliver a surplus of $1.5 billion this year, yet delivering a deficit of more than $19 billion. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr Tune who said the debt ceiling would only need to be $75 billion, only to raise it three additional times to a staggering $300 billion, with the prospect of further increases over the forward estimates; it was the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr Tune who told us the deficit days are behind us and that deficits were temporary, only to have a minimum of seven years of deficits, totalling over $220 billion; it was the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.
It was the Treasurer and the Prime Minister who delivered a carbon tax they promised not to introduce, who dumped the centrepiece of last year's budget before this year's budget—that is, the increase in family tax benefit part A—who guaranteed company tax cuts they never delivered, who cut defence spending to the lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1938, who made Australia the third largest recipient of Australian foreign aid due to its $10 billion border protection failures, and who is making Australian taxpayers foot the $8 billion interest bill on their borrowings. The list goes on.
This leads me to ask one very pertinent question: given the track record of this Treasurer, if he were your suburban accountant, how happy would you be? So when the member for Lyne calls on the House to 'express full confidence in the Department of the Treasury and Finance,' well might we have confidence in them. But there is no evidence to suggest we ought to have confidence in this Treasurer or in this government. (Time expired)
Regional Development Australia Fund
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:50): I rise today to place on record my strong support for the Tasmanian North Eastern Mountain Bike Development Project, which is currently being considered under the Regional Development Australia Fund, round 4. The project is a joint initiative between the Launceston City, Dorset and Break O'Day Councils and Northern Tasmania Development. These will be high-quality trails that will attract not only interstate but also international visitors to the state, creating economic activity and diversification for the area.
Another objective of the project includes new tourist, hospitality and recreation opportunities, including new business opportunities, which will assist with the re-invigoration of the north-east of Tasmania. The project includes the development of 90 kilometres of mountain bike infrastructure, mapping, signage, skills development and marketing, which will drive mountain bike tourism in the north-east of Tasmania. This project, together with existing popular tourism attractions in the area, such as the world-renowned Barnbougal and Lost Farm golf courses will make the north-east a must visit destination for all sporting enthusiasts. I have been and will continue to be a strong fighter for this important project for north-east Tasmania.
Australian Bat Lyssavirus
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:51): Last night, the 60 Minutesprogram on the Nine Network put to air an important story about the dangers of the bat lyssavirus, a form of rabies. It told the heartbreaking story of the death of a Queensland boy who had been scratched by a bat, while playing tennis, and how he developed a brain infection that led to fits, paralysis and, ultimately, a painful death. The message from the program is that we must educate our children never to handle bats and, should they ever be scratched or bitten by a bat, they must immediately be taken to a doctor. It is a matter of life and death. There is a post exposure vaccination available, but it is recommended that medical advice be sought immediately.
The question arises: what happens when our children are disabled and they cannot speak and so cannot tell us if they have been bitten or scratched by a bat? That is the problem that faces the parents, carers and teachers of Bates Drive Special School and the Sylvan Vale Foundation in Kareela, for, right next to their facilities in Sydney's south, a colony of 10,000 flying foxes has moved in after their relocation from Kurnell during the construction of the desalination plant. The Sutherland Shire Council, led by Mayor Kent Johns and Councillor Tom Croucher, are doing the right thing. They are preparing a management plan, but they need the support from the environment minister. I call on the environment minister do everything he can to work with the Sutherland Shire Council— (Time expired)
Parramatta Electorate: Sunday School Anniversary
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:52): Sunday was a very wet day in Parramatta, but a large number of people on Sunday morning braved the weather and arrived at St John's Anglican Cathedral in Parramatta—largely wet from at least the knees down, for most of us—to celebrate a very special day. It was the 200th anniversary of the first Sunday school in Australia. In May 1813, Mr Thomas Hassall, who later became, of course, the Reverend Thomas Hassall, was sitting out in the sun—and this story is told in a publication of St John's Anglican Cathedral:
One hot Sunday afternoon Thomas Hassall was resting and a fly persisted in trying to settle on his face; he continued to drive away the intruder until it became too much to him. Sleep was driven away, if not the fly, and with a little warmth of temper he walked outside the house. There he saw some children at play. It then occurred to him that he ought to find some better way of spending his Sunday afternoon. He took the children indoors and told them Bible stories …
The next week the children returned and the first Sunday school in Australia was born.
It was a wonderful service on Sunday. A time capsule was buried, in the rain. And we paid tribute to the many teachers who, over the last 200 years, have worked so hard with the children to keep that Sunday school thriving—and thriving it is. I congratulate St John's Anglican Cathedral and the Anglican Sunday School of St John's for 200 years— (Time expired)
Education
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (13:54): The attacks on public servants continue today with new attacks on state and federal education departments. In my local Port Macquarie News today we read the headline: 'Don't trust Gonski estimates: Gillespie'. Gillespie is the National Party candidate arguing against the Gonski reforms in school based equity. The Gonski report explains 'an intolerable link'—a three-word slogan, if we need to break it down—between data that says there is a 30 per cent lesser outcome in regional and rural communities versus metropolitan communities. And the funding formula, as it is, is at the heart of that intolerable link. I cannot accept that this chamber is, potentially, going to get in the way of agreements reached between the New South Wales government and their education department and the Commonwealth and their education department, based on some sort of political expediency. That will mean that regional students, like my own children and many of my friends' children, are to accept as normal that, as a collective, they are 30 per cent dumber than metropolitan kids 'just because'. Come on! Let us deal with the intolerable link that exists, and let us listen to the data that is coming from the state and the federal education departments, and start to trust it and deal with common solutions to common problems. (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: Small Business
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:56): Members will be aware of my passion for small and micro business. Before entering parliament, I ran my own microbusiness for 10 years, and I loved it. Since entering parliament, I have spent a great deal of my time talking to small business operators in my electorate and advocating for their needs and interests. That is why I am so concerned for the plight of the Canberra small business community.
On 22 May this year, the member for North Sydney spoke at the National Press Club about Australian small business. Ironically, in the same speech he reaffirmed the coalition's plans to cut thousands of jobs from the public service in Canberra. Doesn't the coalition realise that cutting 12,000 to 20,000 public service jobs in Canberra will also devastate Canberra's small business community?
In 1996 the Howard government cut 15,000 jobs from the public service in Canberra, and I had one of those jobs. The flow-on effects to Canberra's small business community were devastating. Fifteen thousand jobs meant 15,000 people no longer spending on Canberra's small businesses, buying their products and using their services. Business bankruptcies in Canberra increased by 38.4 per cent in the 1996-97 financial year.
With between 12,000 and 20,000 public servants set to go should the coalition win in September, the prospects for small business could be bleak. It seems the coalition has one plan for small businesses in other states and territories and a different one for Canberra's. Canberra: the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour— (Time expired)
Australian Bat Lyssavirus
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:57): Following on from the story on 60 Minutes last night about the serious issue of bat lyssavirus: we have many areas in Sydney that have these problems with bats, especially the area of Kareela. The bats are not native to that area. They were moved on from the Kurnell Peninsula when the desalination plant was constructed. There were warnings at the time that the construction of the desalination plant would result in those bats moving and their habitat being disturbed. Unfortunately, like many things about the desalination plant, those warnings were not adhered to. Now we have a colony of 10,000 bats right next to a disabled school and an area that educates disabled adults.
Our Sutherland shire local council is doing the right thing. However, they have been forced to pay $70,000 for a management plan—$70,000 from the ratepayers of the shire to put together a management plan to move these bats on. That management plan is already finished. However, they have a very short period of time in which they can act. Therefore it is up to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Minister Burke, who I see is here in the chamber now. I call on the environment minister to ensure that he works with the Sutherland Shire Council and that the management plan is put into place quickly so that these bats can be moved on during the winter period and the kids— (Time expired)
United Nations Youth Parliament
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:59): Just recently I had the pleasure of speaking to the UN Youth Parliament. They were here in Canberra for a range of sessions and attended a number of the sessions at Parliament House. It is inspiring to see so many young people interested and engaged in national and international affairs. These were truly some of our best and brightest. I talked with our UN Youth Parliament representatives about my time at DFAT and in parliament, and we discussed the valuable work done by the United Nations. What really impressed me was there is an understanding of how the UN and other multilateral bodies provide a country like Australia with opportunities to get more airtime and influence—airtime and influence that is out of proportion to our population and economic size.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statement has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Yunupingu, Dr M
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:00): The House would be aware that it is a very sad day for Australia. One of our leading Aboriginal citizens has died. We understand his name is widely known; it will be widely reported today, but in respect of the tradition of his people I refer to him as Mr Yunupingu.
The story of Aboriginal advancement in Australia is not a story of consensus; it is a story of struggle—the bark petition, the 1967 referendum, land rights and native title, the national apology. There was a real and robust and in every sense Australian argument about every one of those steps. It was only ever in hindsight that they became steps no-one could unmake.
Mr Yunupingu knew this, and he lived it. He was first and foremost a Gumach Yolngu man, with totems of fire and crocodile, but he shared his message with all Australians. As our nation struggled to find the contrition which was the necessary beginning of reconciliation his words and music were a challenge. He spoke from the heart. It is now more than 20 years since the music of Yothu Yindi thrilled us with a new artistic fusion and an urgent political intent. When he sang:
Well I heard it on the radio
And I saw it on the television
Back in 1988
All those talking politicians
Words are easy, words are cheap
Much cheaper than our priceless land
he sang something which resonates to this day. I can say to you and through you, Speaker, having been there on the occasion when those words were sung, it makes today even more moving for me.
He dreamed that Australians could be better, and he demanded that Australian politics be better—and so it became. Today, on behalf of all Australians, I honour all his work over the years; in the arts and in education, with the Yolngu people in East Arnhem Land, with so many Aboriginal and Australian communities right across our country.
He was the first Yolngu person to gain a university degree, earning a Bachelor of Arts in Education from Deakin University in 1988. In 1990 he became the Principal of Yirrkala Community School, becoming Australia's first ever Aboriginal school principal. He used his own education to make sure Aboriginal people could do what he did and more. He was also committed to the education of all Australians, and with his family and his wife, Gurruwun, he established the Yothu Yindi Foundation and the Garma Festival, helping to bridge the gap between two cultures, bringing us closer day by day.
This is a day of sorrow, but also a day of pride—for the pride all Australians feel in his creativity and character, so strongly informed by his culture; and the pride we feel in his achievements, a foretaste, I hope, of what we will feel when the first Australians take their place in the first document of all Australians. Not just respect but self-respect. But that is to contemplate on a future day.
For now, he is gone and, like so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, gone too young. He was right; often, words are cheap, but his death shows us what a high price is paid by Aboriginal people for Indigenous disadvantage. As we sit in this House on the hill and mourn what the nation has lost today, let us recommit to closing the gap that so diminishes us all. We pay tribute to a leader, the tribal voice of his people, who gave so much and who will be remembered so well.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (14:04): on indulgence—I echo the words of Minister Garrett. Both he and I had the privilege of being with Mr Yunupingu on many occasions in the work that he did, and so the special relationship showed the character of an individual that was so rich, so powerful and yet so loving of all Australians.
Australia has suffered a great loss in the passing of Mr Yunupingu; a musician, an educator and a leader within Indigenous Australia. This former Australian of the Year was a great advocate for education and, during his life, achieved so much in bringing together Australians of all walks of life in common understanding and goals for the future.
Many Australians may not realise that beyond leaving an incredible gift to Australia in the form of Yothu Yindi's music, including that incredible song Treaty, we have also been given the gift of an incredible legacy in education. Graduating, as the minister said, as one of the first Aboriginal people from Arnhem Land to gain a university degree, Mr Yunupingu worked first as a teacher and then as an Aboriginal principal in the Northern Territory. This began an incredible journey to increase awareness about Aboriginal Australians and bring all Australians closer together in a combined vision for our nation's future—a vision that continued until death and that I hope will continue in Australia's collective consciousness far into the future.
It is a journey that included contributing to the public debates on education and his work to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, particularly in the areas of health where, through his own suffering of renal failure, he brought to the minds of many around him and of those within the medical profession the need to provide models of care for renal disease in a way that is very different from that of a hospital.
Mr Yunupingu brought with him an insight into learning which led to an innovative approach to education and which incorporated both Western and Aboriginal approaches—standards which still inform education practices in rural and remote regions of our country today. Mr Yunupingu's journey in 1992 saw recognition of his contribution to education when he was awarded Australian of the Year for his role in 'building bridges of understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people'.
I recall the time I stood with him on the banks of the Swan River, sharing my thoughts on his vision, what could be and what should be for the future of our great nation for all Australians including the role and place of Indigenous Australians within our society. To me and so many others who knew him personally, he was an inspiration. One quote in particular highlights the passion and belief that he had in all Australians. He said:
Australia will become a model for other global communities. … I see Australians coming together from all walks of life, especially Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, for a better tomorrow. We need to lock in to one another's point of view.
I hope that we can continue in this vein, and I hope that we can benefit from our combined wisdom and that in the near future Australia will be the model for others around the world for the way in which all Australians work together. Mr Yunupingu, thank you for making our lives so much richer.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (14:08): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the former Yothu Yindi lead singer and former Australian of the Year from 1992 be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): The Leader of the House, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government will be absent from question time today due to personal reasons. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and Minister for the Arts is acting Leader of the House, and the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation will answer questions in relation to his portfolio and in relation to Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. The Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today and tomorrow as he is returning from a visit to Afghanistan and will then host a visit by the Indian Minister of Defence in Perth. The Minister for Defence Materiel will be absent from question time this week as he is representing Australia at the United Nations General Assembly. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, and Minister for Indigenous Health will answer questions on behalf of both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Materiel.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Broadband Network
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her that her government has committed some $50 million to advertising the National Broadband Network. Does the Prime Minister agree that this $50 million could have been better spent ensuring that communities in Western Sydney, Ballarat, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania were protected from exposure to asbestos resulting from the National Broadband Network rollout?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): The Leader of the Opposition: I am a little bit surprised that he would choose to play politics with this because, as he well knows, this is a matter involving pits and ducts and those pits and ducts are the responsibility of Telstra. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that, but has chosen to play politics with this important matter nevertheless. I suppose we really should not be surprised, given that this is the same person who insulted Bernie Banton on his deathbed. We should not be surprised at all.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Dutton: Why is this scripted?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dixon—that behaviour is disgraceful. The Prime Minister has the call and has the right to be heard in silence.
Ms GILLARD: Certainly playing politics with this matter is disgraceful. As I said last week in this parliament, if the Leader of the Opposition had chosen to listen, the health and safety of the community and workers is always paramount. We all know what a dangerous material asbestos is. We know that from the legacy of Wittenoom and the like. We as a government therefore take this matter very, very seriously. We expect Telstra and its contractors to follow the very strict laws we have in this country, and have for good reason, in relation to the handling and removal of asbestos.
As I said initially in answer to this question, we are talking about infrastructure pits and ducts owned by Telstra. It is its responsibility to get them ready for the NBN rollout in a safe and secure way. So concerned have we been about this matter that ministers Shorten and Conroy have invited Telstra and NBN Co. executives, Comcare, the Office of Asbestos Safety, unions and asbestos safety and victims groups to meet in Canberra today to agree on the next steps required in response to this matter. At the meeting, the government has been seeking from Telstra details of its safety and removal program, and specifically a commitment to remove asbestos from the high-risk pits.
Already the government regulator, Comcare, has stopped work and ordered asbestos removed from two sites in New South Wales. The government is also looking to establish a national register to keep a record of people, be they workers or members of the general public, who think that they have been exposed to asbestos.
The government is very conscious of how serious a matter this is. Consequently, the two ministers have been meeting with Telstra and others today to emphasise the government's desire that Telstra get on with the job. (Time expired.)
Geelong Region
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is working to make the Geelong and Barwon regional communities stronger in light of recent announcements?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. It was a very great pleasure to join him today, as well as the member for Corio and the Minister for Disability Reform, Minister Macklin, to make a very important announcement for the community of Geelong. In this parliament we know that Geelong has been doing it tough. We know that it has been doing it tough after the announcement of the loss of jobs from Ford. Of course, those job losses are not only in Geelong, they are also in Broadmeadows, and they are of great concern to the government because our focus is always on jobs and growth. I had the opportunity to meet with Ford workers in Geelong on the weekend and to speak to them about some additional assistance we will make available for Ford workers in Geelong and Ford workers in Broadmeadows to assist with their retraining so that they can get the next opportunity.
But we also want to make sure that in Geelong and in Broadmeadows we are seeing new sources of opportunity, which is just one of the reasons that I was so delighted to announce today that the national headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia will be in Geelong. This national headquarters will employ 300 people. Geelong is the right place for this national headquarters—the right place because it is home to the Transport Accident Commission; it is a community with expertise in the management of disability, and DisabilityCare Australia will have a great home in Geelong. It is the right place because the Victorian government—and I congratulate the Premier—has stepped forward to see Geelong become home to the headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia with an allocation of $25 million of support. It is the right place because, of course, it is a community waiting to hear good news, and this is good news for Geelong. And it is certainly the right place because the members for Corangamite and Corio have been waging a very fierce campaign to put the credentials of Geelong before the federal government.
Today I am in a position to say we have listened and we have decided that the national headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia will be in Geelong. The launch office for the launch site is already there in Geelong, employing some 120 people. We are less than a month away now from the launch of DisabilityCare in Geelong and in other parts of the country. I was absolutely delighted to be there today to deliver such good news for the people of Geelong.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): On indulgence: in the spirit of bipartisanship in respect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the opposition applauds this move. It will be good for the NDIS and it will be good for the people of Geelong.
National Broadband Network
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I remind him that since the NBN Co. agreed to use Telstra's ducts and pits in June 2011 the two companies have known asbestos could be a danger in the rollout. Concerned unions contacted NBN Co. about this issue in early 2011 and there have been at least a half dozen incidents reported in the press over the last year. Can the minister inform the House whether and, if so, on what occasions he has met with Telstra and NBN Co. regarding asbestos problems prior to last week? (Time expired)
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:17): I thank the member opposite for the question. I wrote to Telstra in 2009 to talk to them and to say that there were people reporting that there were problems with pits. Telstra wrote back and said they had the matter under control. We have seen in recent days and weeks that clearly they have not. I can report that I have been meeting with Telstra and other stakeholders today and, in fact, I went to Penrith on Saturday with the member for Lindsay, David Bradbury, who has been standing up for these residents.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the minister was asked, very pointedly, how many times he had met with Telstra before last week. That is the answer that we are looking for and nothing else.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Question time is not about the answers you are looking for; it is about ministers being relevant to the question. The minister has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: I should say also at the outset of this issue that the identification and eradication of asbestos in Australia is a priority for this government. I am pleased that the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis passed the legislation less than an hour ago.
In terms of Telstra we have met with the CEO, David Thodey, and other people from his company, stakeholders including unions, including contractors, including the Chief Medical Officer and we went through the issues which have been widely reported in recent days. Telstra made it very clear at this meeting that they accepted that they have to do more. Telstra accepted, in matters going from inspection to training to education, that there had been deficiencies and that they needed to do more.
I am pleased to inform the House that Telstra, along with all the stakeholders, including victim support groups—I do not think I had mentioned they were there—agreed about the outcomes of this meeting we have just had. What was good was that we saw organisations taking the high road in terms of not seeking to blame but, rather, to accept responsibility. We saw that Telstra accepted responsibility for end-to-end training throughout the system, making sure that contractors and everyone working with pits and ducts were trained adequately in the safe handling of asbestos. Telstra also accepted the need to do much better in terms of respecting the anxieties of the community, particularly those in Penrith and Ballarat—the member for Ballarat was also with us at the meeting—but not just them. I congratulate the CEO of Telstra on the way he conducted himself in the meeting. Indeed, in the discussions that we had there was a recognition that Telstra and stakeholders—in particular, contractors—needed to do better than they have been doing, because asbestos is a real scourge in the Australian community.
It is estimated that one in three houses built between the end of World War II and the late 1980s would have asbestos within them. Asbestos was widely used in Australia and we have the highest per capita incidence of asbestos related diseases. It is a problem which the labour movement has been tackling for generations. It is a problem that the labour movement wishes we could uninvent. (Time expired)
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, just a point of order: could the minister please table the letter he referred to?
The SPEAKER: Was the minister reading from a document?
Mr Turnbull: No, he referred to a letter that he wrote.
The SPEAKER: All I can refer to is documents he was reading from. I cannot ask for tablings of anything else besides his notes.
Mr Turnbull: He might want to table it, if he is so concerned about it.
The SPEAKER: Given the debate, that was unwarranted.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business: I am not going to enter into points of order.
Education
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (14:22): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the government implementing its plans to invest in our schools and our young people? Why is investing in a smarter Australia critical to us becoming a stronger nation?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Moreton for this question, because a world-class school system is one of the pillars that modern families rely on to prosper in a globally competitive economy.
The most fundamental thing we can do for our country, both economically and socially, is to invest in the education of our young people. We know this; it went to the very core of our recent budget. What we did was to put in place funding to invest in the Gonski school reforms—the school improvement program—knowing that this is the most fundamental investment we can make.
There is a lot of discussion out there about competitiveness and about productivity, but all the evidence shows that if you lift the quality of your education system you can lift your productivity in your economy. So this is the smartest thing we can do for families and it is the smartest thing we can do for our country.
Some people just see spending on education as a cost to the budget. But spending on education is a vital investment in our future. Of course, that is what the Gonski report showed, and that is what all of the research shows. It does not matter whether you go to the research from the Treasury, from private think tanks, from overseas, from the OECD or from the World Bank: it all says the same thing. And, of course, if you have a broken funding model, that impacts upon quality. What the Gonski report said is that our model is broken. So what we have to do is to put in place an up-to-date funding model that will deliver the resources and that will deliver the quality outcome for our country.
If we look at some of the studies that have been done, there is the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has said that our current declining education performance will reduce the size of our economy by $1.5 trillion over the life of a child today. All of the work shows that if you increase retention rates through to year 12, that will increase GDP and add wealth to the economy.
So, from our point of view, a stronger Australia has to come through being a smarter Australia. We also understand that this needs to be done working in cooperation with state governments. That is why the Prime Minister was so delighted to see the Premier of New South Wales sign up to a modern funding model; a funding model that delivers to every child at every school at every postcode, right across the state of New South Wales. What we want to see for Australia is to deliver that to every state: to every child across every postcode in every state of Australia—that is what we need to see if we are going to meet that challenge of the future to invest in our people.
We saw that the education minister in New South Wales made the point that this was a funding model that was too good to refuse. But, unfortunately, we do not have sign-on—particularly from my home state of Queensland, where the Premier of Queensland has been thugged by the Leader of the Opposition in putting his political—(Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:25): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker of the Parliament of Papua and New Guinea, the Hon. Theo Zurenuoc. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. To him and his clerks, I wish a fruitful week of discovery in the Australian parliament.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Education
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (14:26): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The Treasurer has spoken about increased school funding. How would schools in my electorate of Moreton and in other parts of my state be affected if the Queensland government does not sign up to this funding agreement?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:26): I do thank the member for Moreton, because there are 45 schools in the electorate of Moreton with 21,000 students, and because the Leader of the Opposition has thugged the Premier of Queensland, they are now going to miss out—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member would withdraw the—
Mr SWAN: I do withdraw. But, of course, as we know, there are students right across the state of Queensland. We have the electorate of Brisbane, where there are something like 47 schools, and 25,000 students will miss out.
Mr Christensen: Finish your last line!
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson is warned!
Mr SWAN: And there we have up in Dawson tens of thousands of students who are going to miss out. The fact is that we need a world-class funding system—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bradfield is warned!
Mr SWAN: to make sure that every child across our country gets the best possible start in life.
And, of course, politics has intervened. The Leader of the Opposition is saying to state premiers, 'Don't sign up!' just like he is saying to the Queensland government, 'Don't sign up to the Cross River Rail,' because he thinks it is in his political interests. And the losers here are the families right across Australia—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Aston is warned!
Mr SWAN: who will not see this sort of funding increase that they deserve to see.
In Queensland there is the loss of billions of dollars each year, and per school. If you go to a school in the electorates of Brisbane or Moreton, that is something like $2.5 million each over the next six years. That is the loss to education in Queensland: a huge loss right across the country, and all because the Leader of the Opposition puts his political interests over the interests of Australian schoolchildren.
National Broadband Network
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer to his previous answer in which he referred to a letter he wrote to Telstra about its pits in 2009, two years before the NBN signed its deal with Telstra. Did the letter refer to asbestos? Did it refer to the NBN Co.? In what capacity did he write it, and will he table a copy of it?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:28): In terms of the issues which the shadow minister is raising, I will go to a number of the points which are inherent in the question. The first point is that what has triggered this debate is the debate about what has been happening in Penrith. I had the opportunity to go and meet the residents—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Julie Bishop: Just answer the question!
Mr SHORTEN: Well, we all know why the issue is being raised. It is because there has been a whole lot of debate in the media—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked a very simple question about the relevance of his letter that he mentioned in his answer before. He needs to explain an answer to the member for Wentworth's question very clearly.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister has the call, and will refer to the question before the chair.
Mr SHORTEN: I will refer to the question in terms of my answer. The issue which has prompted the member for Wentworth's question, of course, has been the most recent reports about asbestos exposure in Penrith and, indeed, the role of Telstra and contractors, and responsibility for that exposure.
The first point I want to make in coming to the answer of the member's question is this: asbestos should not be a political football. I met with a family whose 11-week-old child may have been exposed to asbestos. This is a very serious matter. This is why I do not believe it is appropriate that we use exposure to asbestos in a political way, which the member for Wentworth is doing. What is it about asbestos exposure which the opposition do not get? It is not politics; it actually should be above politics.
The second point I wish to make is that the meeting we had just before has agreed—stakeholders, including Telstra and contractors, have agreed—that there should be, for the first time ever, a national public health register for exposure. That is a very important breakthrough. And it does not just extend to employees or contractors. Under this Labor government, which has got a track record of tackling asbestos, what we will do is establish a public health register. Those opposite had 12 years to do it when they were in power, and they just did not do it.
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Wentworth, on a point of order other than relevance.
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, the minister is defying you. You have told him to go to the question. He is refusing to answer a very simple question.
The SPEAKER: The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. The question obviously went to asbestos. The minister has the call and will be relevant to the question.
Mr SHORTEN: I know the coalition has moved to the far right, but it is disappointing to see the member for Wentworth having to demonstrate his right-wing bona fides by engaging in this cheap politics.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to the question.
Mr SHORTEN: But for the purposes of assisting the House I would like to table the letter that I wrote to Telstra on 27 March 2009.
Leaders Debate Commission
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister, with the standing opportunity for indulgence from others.
The SPEAKER: Which I will not grant.
Mr OAKESHOTT: It was taken up earlier by others. Is the Prime Minister committed to a leaders debate commission as agreed in 2010? If so, why hasn't the matter progressed?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:32): I thank the member for his question. The government is committed to a leaders debate commission. We are committed to it. We are open to progressing discussions about it. I will certainly look forward to debating the Leader of the Opposition on many occasions.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:32): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister agree, with others in the chamber, in light of the answer given, to table all correspondence between leadership teams and head offices on all matters related to accountable and open government and election debates in 2013?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:32): These matters have been pursued, as I am advised, between the National Secretary of the Labor Party and his counterpart, Mr Loughnane. I must admit I could not tell the House how much of that has been in writing and how much of that has been in periodic discussions which the national secretaries have. But let me be very clear. We certainly are committed to a leaders debate commission, and I will certainly look forward to debating the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions.
National Broadband Network
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:33): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Will the minister update the House on the steps that Telstra is taking in relation to asbestos? How will the government better protect Australians from this deadly scourge?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:33): I thank the member for the question. I note that it is the labour movement who have got, I think, the proudest record of tackling the issues on asbestos. We understand that asbestos in Australia will still kill—
Mr Christensen: You're not political, are you!
Mr SHORTEN: Member for Dawson, what is it about asbestos that you think there is a need for you to pollute with your political palaver? Asbestos is an absolute priority to tackle and eradicate in this country. It is a Labor government which has now created, for the first time, a national agency to deal with asbestos and coordinate a national plan. Asbestos is something which for generations the labour movement and—I am going to use those words that the opposition hate hearing; they put their hands over their ears—the trade unions pushed hard on. Everyone in the labour movement wishes, as I know many in the opposition do, that we could uninvent the scourge of asbestos. We wish that companies like James Hardie had done it differently from the way they did, but they did not and that is the sad legacy of asbestos.
We know in this country that it is not just those who have mined asbestos and it is not just those who have worked in the manufacturing of asbestos but now it is people in their own homes and in the communities who can be exposed to asbestos. That is why this government commissioned an asbestos management review, chaired by Geoff Fary, to make recommendations on how we can have a national approach on asbestos. In implementing the recommendations of that report, we have created legislation to create an asbestos agency. I acknowledge that the opposition have supported that asbestos agency. I particularly acknowledge the member for Farrer and a speech she gave about supporting this matter.
Today I have had to meet Telstra, along with my ministerial colleagues the member for Ballarat, the member for Lindsay and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. We met with Telstra, we met with NBN Co., we met with stakeholders, we met with trade unions and we met with the victims groups—we had the Chief Medical Officer present—to talk about what we do, because it is clear to me, having spoken directly with the member for Lindsay and to the residents in Penrith, that they have not been treated properly in the way that this matter has been conducted. But what is particularly pleasing is that the CEO of Telstra, David Thodey, came to the meeting and he took a leadership position. He did not take a political position and he did not take a legal position. He took a leadership position. He agreed that Telstra accepts responsibility that it has to do more. So residents should be pleased that that is the open transparency which Telstra is committed to. He put the contractors on notice that he expects people to live up to the standards and to make sure that Telstra's standards are trained throughout the system. Furthermore, he said that he accepted responsibility for the end-to-end training involved.
This has been a dreadful time for those Penrith residents. It is a dreadful time to think that your child might have been exposed. It will hardly be enhanced by some of the opposition questioning, I have to say. But what we will do, I can inform the House, is establish a national asbestos register for anyone to record their possible exposure to asbestos—not just employees and contractors but residents, people in their own homes and people in our communities. We will work with all stakeholders and we will work with the opposition when they choose to work with us, and we will not see the people of Penrith and other areas let down in the way they were by Telstra and other organisations who should have done better. (Time expired)
National Broadband Network
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and I refer to his previous answers and the letter he has just tabled. Since it is clear that from March 2009, the month before the NBN Co. was actually established, the minister was personally aware of asbestos in Telstra infrastructure, why did he apparently not have any meetings or further contact with Telstra or the NBN Co. concerning asbestos prior to last week—and, if he did, could he tell us what the contact was?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:38): In March 2009—and I am sorry the member for Wentworth has not followed my career as closely as he ought to have—I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services. So, of course, as parliamentary secretary for disabilities I still wrote to Telstra, because people had come to me and said there were concerns and, as a conscientious member of parliament, you still raise issues. But, if the member for Wentworth is saying that as parliamentary secretary for disabilities somehow I am not doing my job there, let us have a look at the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which the leader opposite is so keen to hug.
When we talk about asbestos, since I have become the minister we have implemented the Asbestos Management Review and we have put in place a national agency. When the matters in Penrith came to light, I went up on the weekend to go and see the residents and to hear from them. I would be interested to see how the member for Wentworth went with the residents of Penrith when he met with them, if he has actually done that, seeing that he is very keen to give advice. But, furthermore, I convened a meeting with Telstra. I am having a look at my correspondence, Member for Wentworth, on all the occasions on which you have raised with me the issues of asbestos and Telstra. What I might suggest here is that what really matters is the safety of Australians. What really matters is dealing with exposure to asbestos. What really matters is not taking some sort of petty political right-wing points—
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. We are seeking to give the minister the opportunity to answer a very specific question as to why he did not raise the matter with Telstra between March—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The minister has concluded his answer.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:39): Just before I call the member for Wentworth, I have been informed that in the House today we have present the Hon. Ian Viner, former member for Stirling. I welcome him to the chamber.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Broadband Network
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:40): I have a supplementary question to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister confirm to the House that between March 2009 and last week, notwithstanding his knowledge of asbestos contamination in Telstra infrastructure, he made no contact and raised the matter with neither Telstra nor NBN Co. in that intervening period?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:40): I appreciate the member for Wentworth continuing the politicisation of asbestos. But, in terms of following up on the matters, following 27 March I did actually write to Telstra again, on 4 August 2009. I am happy to table that. Then on 2 November I wrote again to Telstra about their issues. At that point Telstra again wrote back to me with a detailed proposition about what they are doing. So, in fact, I am happy to see how many communications—
Mr Hockey: No. Then what happened?
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney!
Mr SHORTEN: My goodness! This is more relevant than your questions. I am happy to understand from the shadow minister for communications how he has not raised any issues if he is meant to be across the issues of Telstra. I am interested to see—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I tell you what: whilst I may have got in a traffic jam going out to Penrith on Saturday, it was not caused by a whole long list of federal Liberal MPs rushing out to see asbestos exposure victims. Very tawdry!
Education
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. How will schools in Queensland benefit from the National Plan for School Improvement? Why is the plan so important for students in our schools and a smart investment in our nation's future?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:42): I thank the member for Capricornia for that question, and I know that she has had a profound commitment to the delivery of support for education in her electorate: nearly $130 million in improving school facilities, 60 libraries, 26 multipurpose halls and 63 classrooms. The member would be familiar with the results for Queensland students, where more effort and more support are needed. I had a look at the NAPLAN results for 2012, and we can see that in year 3 reading around 17.4 per cent of students in Queensland are at or below national minimum standard. That is around 10,000 students. In international testing in year 4 reading, almost one in three students in Queensland are at or below benchmarks. The key thing here—and the Treasurer referred to it—is that, if kids are below these benchmarks, they will not get good jobs in the future and their learning will not proceed as well as it could.
Of course, our response to that is to make sure that we invest in reforms that will make a difference: individual help for students, lifting teacher quality and giving principals more say over their school. If Premier Newman would put the petty politics aside then schools in Queensland would benefit from additional investment of around $3.8 billion over the next six years. I am asked why the plan is so important. The reason why this plan is so important is that the opposite to that is that if Queensland does not sign up then over the next six years Queensland government schools will lose a total of around $3 billion and non-government schools a total of around $1.2 billion. Incidentally, that is about $2.5 million on average per school.
I notice that others outside the parliament can see how critical and important this is. I saw the release from the Australian Government Primary Principals Association. I applaud the primary principals for speaking up, because they have been very clear that Australian students deserve to have their governments act on their behalf. That is what they specifically said, but they had something to say about the opposition as well, and it was this: they rejected the views expressed by Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne that the current school-funding model is satisfactory and any changes should be postponed to a distant future.
That is 5,300 school leaders in government primary schools around Australia declaring absolutely clearly that what the opposition leader and the member for Sturt have on the table in rejecting this National Plan for School Improvement will mean less investment going to schools in Queensland, not more. At the end of the day, if we want a stronger, smarter and fairer nation, we need to support a National Plan for School Improvement. That is what we will do. The opposition will not.
National Broadband Network
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (14:45): My question is the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. In September 2012 NBN Co. issued a request for capability statements for contractors that included 'toxic waste and asbestos removal' as part of the description of work to be undertaken. How many NBN Co. contactors have so far undertaken asbestos removal? What training and accreditation is required by NBN Co. before it hires contractors for this work?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:45): I appreciate the member for Cowper promoting me to Minister for Communications. I will take some of that question on notice to find out the answers to the matters to do with NBN Co., which is not in my portfolio. But what I can say in answer to the question about asbestos and training is that I have represented the debate about asbestos, the victims of asbestos and people being exposed to asbestos while I was with the union. I have done this alongside many of the other representatives of the union movement throughout the history of dealing with asbestos.
I have certainly also represented issues about people being exposed to asbestos while I have been in the parliament. I have also represented them upon becoming minister for workplace relations and in making sure that we get the recommendations to the asbestos management review and also upon implementing the recommendations. I also believe I was representing them when I was there on Saturday with the member for Lindsay, Mr Bradbury, the Assistant Treasurer. I believe that I was representing people today, along with the member for Ballarat, the member for Lindsay and the communications minister, by making sure that—
Mr Hartsuyker: Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was very specific. How many contractors have so far undertaken asbestos removal? What training and accreditation are required before NBN Co. hires them?
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call and will be relevant to the question.
Mr SHORTEN: I thank the member for Cowper. I tell you one thing I have never done: I have never represented the companies in court who made the asbestos and damaged workers.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to the question.
Mr SHORTEN: I will tell you what I have also done: I have never insulted the victims of asbestos and their campaigners.
Automotive Industry
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation. How is the government working with Australia's automotive manufacturing industry to support jobs, health and safety and deal with the economic challenges affecting the industry? Why is it critical that we have accurate information about these challenges?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:48): I thank the member for Wakefield for his question because the government is working with Australian manufacturers to support jobs and to improve competitiveness and to improve productivity. Just last February the Prime Minister and I released a $1 billion plan to support manufacturing jobs in particular. We have also got our $5.4 billion new car plan which is assisting the automotive industry. That is $5.4 billion in assistance that the coalition would take an axe to, just like they voted against our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan to support jobs in the steel industry—they would take an axe to that as well—and just like last week the coalition voted against the government's Australian Jobs Bill to give local manufacturers fairer opportunities on major resource projects. We stand for jobs on this side of the House, they stand to axe them.
It is important to rely upon accurate information when considering the challenges facing industries like manufacturing, otherwise policy responses will not have a proper foundation. If you took the approach of the opposition leader to policy development, you would be in all sorts of trouble because he blames everything on carbon pricing. It is responsible for every problem in the country. Over the weekend he once again blamed carbon pricing for Ford's decision to cease manufacturing in 2016 and he once again wrongly and falsely claimed that carbon pricing added $400 to the cost of a car. That is a totally false and mendacious claim that has been disproven on numerous occasions. It relies upon speculation from early in 2011 before the government even announced the carbon price policy. It assumes a carbon price significantly higher than the actual price that is in the market. It assumes there is no assistance to industries like steel and glass, that there is no assistance to industries, and all of his assumptions—of course—are wrong. The opposition leader knows it.
The fact is that the carbon price impact on car manufacturers is about $50 a car, not $400 a car as he falsely claimed. If you compare it to the appreciation in the Australian dollar of just 1c, 1c appreciation equates to about a $250 impact on the competitiveness of an Australian car. So every time the opposition leader repeats this $400 figure he is deliberately misleading the Australian public and the auto manufacturing workforce. That deception was called out on the weekend by none other than the star of today's question time, the member for Wentworth. He had this to say about this claim, 'It would be disingenuous to suggest that the reason Ford is shutting down is because of the carbon tax'. He is on the move. He has been sitting up here at the table and he is absolutely right on that. (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:51): Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Further to the minister's answer and the issues he identified for industry, what has been done in recent years in relation to health and safety and asbestos exposure?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:51): I thank the member for Wakefield for his supplementary question because health and safety are a very important part of relationships with the manufacturing industry.
Mr Pyne: Speaker, a supplementary must follow the answer that the minister has just given and the supplementary question bears no relationship whatever to the answer that the minister has just given.
Mr COMBET: Yes, dealing with health and safety is very important in relation to the manufacturing industry and other industries—including the communications industry, in fact. It is very important to deal with these issues of exposure to asbestos, and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and I in particular, in our previous careers as union officials, had a lot to do with this particular issue, supporting the victims of asbestos, which of course leads to extremely debilitating diseases.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite clear from the minister's answer that the question bore no relationship whatsoever to the original question, since the original question was about the carbon tax and this is a question apparently about asbestos.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister will refer his answer to the original question. The minister has the call.
Mr COMBET: It is relevant to the original question, particularly the importance of health and safety in these industries and having a track record of supporting people in their jobs and in health and safety—not like those on the other side, who do not have any track record and who come here today asking questions about asbestos that are completely hypocritical. It is total hypocrisy. You on that side of the House have got no track record in supporting people.
The SPEAKER: The minister will refer to the original question.
Mr COMBET: We know perfectly well where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in her previous career in dealing with the victims of asbestos—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat.
Asylum Seekers
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that the first public commitment she made as Prime Minister was, 'I understand the Australian people want strong management of our borders and I will provide it.' After 42,000 illegal arrivals on over 700 boats, does she believe that she has delivered on that commitment?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:54): To the Leader of the Opposition's question and quick change of topic: what the government has done and is continuing to do is implement the expert recommendations from the panel overseen by Angus Houston and participated in by Paris Aristotle and Michael L'Estrange. The government is continuing to pursue those recommendations.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition walked into this parliament and voted for more boats. At the same time, and in accordance with the recommendations of that expert panel, we are working with our neighbours on cooperation against people smuggling. We do work very strongly, for example, with Indonesia on cooperation against people smuggling. What we do not do as we cooperate with Indonesia is verbal them, pretend that an agreement has been reached with them and only then, in an embarrassing move, back away from it—that is, we do not conduct ourselves like the opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was the Prime Minister's commitment to deliver strong management of our borders. I have asked her: does she believe she has delivered on that—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I am being directly relevant to the question of protecting our borders, directly relevant to the question of regional cooperation and, consequently, directly relevant to how one has to deal with our neighbours with respect to ensure that one can maximise cooperation. What you do not do if you are treating our neighbours with respect is give an interview claiming that you have got a deal with them only, when it gets a bit hot and people go inquiring about that deal, to then, in a shambolic way, back away from it. But that, of course, is exactly the position the opposition has found itself in today. It is in that position because, in this very important area of people smuggling, what it is continuing to do is try and peddle a slogan.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Ms GILLARD: They are continuing to try and pretend that they have got some solutions. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that, when he had an opportunity to meet with the President of Indonesia, he did not even raise his so-called 'policy' of turning back boats, because he knew he would be repudiated.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Ms GILLARD: Now today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has embarrassed herself, embarrassed the opposition and embarrassed the nation.
Asian Century
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:57): My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. Minister, how is the government's AsiaBound program contributing to stronger relations with countries in the region? Moreover, what obstacles are there to Australia's relations with our neighbours?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (14:58): I certainly thank the member for Reid not only for his question but also for his interest in Asian century policy. Through the AsiaBound program the government are supporting young people studying in Asia. We are providing financial support for around 3,600 students a year from Australia to go study in Asia. There is legislation being debated to bring that to fruition from 1 July. In addition, through the Asian century scholarships we are supporting young people from the region coming to study in Australia. Indeed, the Asian century scholarship program supports 12,000 students from the region and therefore dwarfs the Colombo Plan. Everyone knows of the Colombo Plan, but this is so much bigger. In fact, the Asian century scholarships do in five years what the Colombo did in 30 years.
I am asked about obstacles to building those relationships with our neighbours in the region. Of course, there are very substantial obstacles, and they are sitting over on the other side of the parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has embarrassed not only the coalition but also the Leader of the Opposition, the Australian parliament and the Indonesian government by falsely claiming that high-ranking Indonesian ministers and officials have indicated privately that Indonesia would cooperate with a coalition government to turn back people smuggler boats. The report says the Deputy Leader of the Opposition insisted on that. Indeed, to quote her, she said:
I have had a number of conversations with high-ranking Indonesian ministers and officials, as has Scott Morrison as has Tony Abbott and I am convinced we can work in cooperation with Indonesia to achieve our policy aim—
of towing back boats. She was challenged about that by the Indonesian ambassador, who completely repudiated any such suggestion. When he said, 'No such collaboration will happen between Indonesia and Australia to bring back the people to Indonesia,' the Deputy Leader of the Opposition told the Guardian:
Professional diplomats are paid to present particular views but what goes on behind the scenes can be quite different …
So she is saying that the ambassador for Indonesia has had a private conversation with her—obviously, no such conversation with her ever occurred.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Dr EMERSON: Oh, really? She has just again raised this proposition that the Indonesian ambassador had said to her privately that they will agree to tow back boats. They will not. Indeed, the foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, has said they will not and the Indonesian ambassador has said, 'We will not,' yet she persists with this false claim. (Time expired)
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kooyong is denying the member for Cook the call. The member for Cook has the call.
National Security
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I remind the minister of evidence given in Senate estimates by the Director-General of ASIO that ASIO informed his department on 30 August last year that a man they were holding in a low-security family accommodation facility in the Adelaide Hills was a convicted Egyptian Jihadist terrorist subject to an Interpol red notice. Why was no action taken by the then minister to remove the man to a more secure facility at that time? He was only moved to a secure location once the story was published in the media in April, more than seven months later.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure the House and assure the honourable member that national security is the most important priority of this government. I can assure the House that our security agency, ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the department work very closely together to ensure that our people are kept safe. For that reason we can assure this House that we will continue to ensure there is rigour when we make assessments. What people do understand is that when we have people arrive in such a fashion—that is through irregular maritime arrivals—there are assessments for security, for identity and for health purposes. That occurs so as to ensure that, if we were to release people, we would release people in an appropriate manner.
In so far as the matter in question that has been raised by the honourable member is concerned—
Mr Robb interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein does not have a right to continually interject.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: at no time has that person been out of detention in the entire period he has been in Australia.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Nor does the member for Mackellar!
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: It would be misleading for the honourable member in asking the question to suggest that the person in question has been out of detention. He has not been out of detention. Further to that, there has also been surveillance and monitoring of that person while in detention.
There are a number of things that I will not disclose and should not disclose because they are matters of national security. We have a convention of providing briefings that we are very happy to extend to the opposition, of course provided that, if we do allow such a briefing, they do not disclose those details publicly, which happened last week by the shadow Attorney-General after being briefed by—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure all of this is very interesting, but he was asked why the Jihadist in question remained in the Adelaide Hills after 30 August last year and it was true he was only moved when it appeared in the media.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: As I was saying, we have ensured that the person has been detained at all times. That was the advice I received from my department. The department continues to work with the Australian Federal Police and ASIO to ensure that our people are kept safe. It would be absolutely outrageously misleading for the honourable member to suggest otherwise.
Further to that, we do not want to reflect on the hardworking men and women of our agencies. They do a wonderful job. This question insinuates that somehow those agencies failed us. They did not fail us. For that reason the honourable member should rethink what he wants to be putting to me in question time if he is suggesting and impugning the good name of our agencies.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:05): Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in relation to his just answered question. I remind the minister that article 32 of the refugee convention enables signatory countries to deny asylum claims on national security grounds. Has the department of immigration commenced processing the asylum claim of the convicted Egyptian Jihadist terrorist who was the subject of an Interpol red notice and, if so, why?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:05): I have not received advice as to whether the person in question has gone through any assessment, but I can assure the House that the person is in detention and there is no determination made insofar as any protection visa being provided to that person and, as I have made very clear, the department, the security agency, the Australian Federal Police and other agencies do a very good job in ensuring that they protect the interests of this country.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I would have thought that people were actually interested in the answer. You are definitely not giving that impression. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: The honourable member would also know that there might be situations where people may be afforded protection even if they have committed offences or where there are allegations of offences; however, as we have already seen in relation to other individuals where there has been, for example, protection afforded or potentially afforded to them because of the situation in which they are in, there has been sufficient security in place in order for them not to be released. The honourable member would understand that there are situations where a person could indeed be determined to be a refugee, on one hand, and yet still not be able to be released into the community because of the offences they may have committed. That, of course, is why we rely so heavily upon ASIO and other agencies. (Time expired)
MOTIONS
National Security
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:07): I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as to allow the member for Cook to move the following motion:
That given the Government’s refusal to answer questions in this House and their refusal to establish an independent inquiry into the Government’s ‘light touch’ handling of national security issues regarding the detention and processing of a convicted terrorist who arrived illegally by boat in and around May 2012 that:
(1) a Select Committee on the ‘National security issues relating to the processing and detention of a convicted terrorist who arrived by boat in and around May 2012 and other related matters involving the Government’s handling of national security issues for irregular maritime arrivals’ be appointed to inquire into and report on, the following incident:
(a) in or around May 2012, an Egyptian adult male accompanied by his family arrived illegally by boat at Christmas Island claiming asylum.
(b) After initial processing the man and family were transferred to the Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention, a detention facility for low risk asylum seeker families in the Adelaide hills;
(c) by end August 2012 it was established by ASIO that this man was convicted of multiple terrorist offences, a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which merged with Al Qaeda in June 2001. He was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice; and
(d) the man and family remained in low security detention at Inverbrackie until April 2013 when they were transferred to higher security detention facilities at Villawood in Sydney;
(2) the Select Committee should:
(a) establish the facts surrounding the case in relation to:
(i) the full chronology of the events relating to the man and his family’s arrival and detention in Australia and associated security and criminal investigations;
(ii) how and when relevant agencies and Ministers became aware of the man’s terrorist conviction and what action was taken in response to that knowledge;
(iii) the adequacy of interagency co-operation, and in particular co-operation between DIAC, ASIO and the AFP, in identifying, sharing information, and taking steps to appropriately deal with the individual concerned;
(iv) why the individual was left so long at the Inverbrackie low security facility before being transferred to Villawood;
(v) the current location and security arrangements for the man and family;
(vi) the current status of immigration processing of his asylum or any other claim; and
(vii) action being taken in relation to his extradition to Egypt and the point of responsibility for ongoing management of this national security case;
(b) review the facts and make an assessment of any failings in the Government’s handling of this case and who will be responsible;
(c) identify and establish the facts relating to the Government’s handling of other cases, involving national security issues including, but not restricted to:
(i) a Sri Lankan national suspected of murder who was released into the community before being taken to Villawood detention centre;
(ii) a suspected Iranian drug smuggler who arrived via boat and is now in a mental health facility;
(iii) asylum seeker claims involving membership of the group the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; and
(iv) any other asylum seeker claim that has received a negative ASIO security assessment; and
(d) make recommendations to address issues identified in the review;
(3) the committee consist of seven members, three members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one non-aligned member;
(4) the committee may supplement its membership by up to four members, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote;
(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(6) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(7) the committee elect a government or a non-government member as chair at its first meeting;
(8) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one government member and one non-government member;
(11) the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;
(12) the committee appoint the chair of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a sub-committee constitute the quorum of that sub-committee;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any sub-committee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(16) the committee or any sub-committee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(17) the committee or any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representative;
(18) the committee may report from time to time but that it present its final report no later than 30 June 2013; and
(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
This government has a light touch on our borders and it has a light touch on national security. This inquiry is required, and it is important that standing orders be suspended, because this is an urgent matter. This House sits for just three more weeks before the break. This minister has refused to conduct an independent inquiry when given the opportunity to do so. It seems this minister has not one word of concern, let alone action, in relation to these incredibly serious matters that have enabled a convicted terrorist to sit in a low-grade facility in the Adelaide Hills for a period of seven months without being moved. It was only when the West Australian published details of this that he got out from under his desk, decided to make a decision and put this person in the place he should have always been, which was a high-security facility.
This is a government whose light touch on our borders has resulted in over 700 boats turning up over the course of its tenure—more than 550 under this Prime Minister herself—and more than 200 people turning up on a boat within the last 48 hours alone. There have been 35,000 arrivals since the last election and cost blow-outs of more than $10 billion.
It is a true fact that we spend more today on the department of immigration than we spend separately, net, on the capability of our Navy and our Air Force. We spend more on immigration, dealing with the blow-outs in costs, than we spend on the capability of our Navy and ourAir Force. The time line on these things is an absolute disgrace, because it shows a government that has completely sat on its hands while a convicted terrorist came into the country and was known to be here. ASIO and the AFP advised the department of immigration of the serious nature of this individual and the government thought that this individual should stay in a low security facility under the government's watch—a process that the Prime Minister herself said she was satisfied with, which was a light-touch approach.
That is the standard and that is where the bar has been set for national security issues by this government. That is why an independent inquiry is needed and why standing orders need to be suspended, because this is not the first time. We all remember that Captain Emad could come into this country by boat as a people smuggler and fly out of this country as a people smuggler because, under this government, everybody was pointing fingers in the opposite direction. Nobody knew what each other was doing, nobody was paying attention to what was happening on our borders and, as a result, Captain Emad remains at large and his family remain in public housing here in the ACT, much to the disenchantment of the entire Australian population because that story in itself speaks volumes of the light touch approach that this Prime Minister sanctions, that this minister operates and the ministers before him also operated on our borders. We need an inquiry, because this government does not learn from its mistakes. We see repeatedly in this place, whether it is pink batts or anything else, that this government just never learns from its mistakes.
So we gave the government the opportunity last Friday for this minister to step up and actually do his job and find out what went wrong to enable this situation to proceed for seven months. He said no. I suspect the government do not want to know the answer. They do not want to know how many more risks are out there. They do not want to know how wide the cracks are in the system the government have built over the last six years that have allowed the Captain Emads and an Egyptian jihadist terrorist to come into the country on boats and go into low grade facilities next to a Defence Force facility in South Australia, in the Adelaide Hills, in the electorate of Mayo. The member for Mayo has stood up in this place and in other places and was told by the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship that only people on low security risk would be in there.
A convicted Egyptian terrorist, with an Interpol red notice, does not qualify as low security. But this government thinks it does. This government thinks it is appropriate, that that is where that sort of a person should be and it is so endemic of the way these national security matters are handled by this government. They are a light touch on our borders and they are a light touch on national security and this minister is a light touch. (Time expired)
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:17): I second the motion. I do so because we are dealing today with one of the gravest national security breaches that have occurred under this government and in recent memory. I say that, because we know a lot about this case. I will list the reasons why I say this is a grave breach of national security. The individual whom we are talking about today is a member of Egyptian Islamic jihad, an organisation that merged with al-Qaeda prior to the September 11 attacks in the United States, an organisation which was headed at the time by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who people will know took over the leadership of al-Qaeda once Osama bin Laden was killed. It also furnished other leadership positions within al-Qaeda, including Mohammed Atta, who led the attacks on September 11 in the United States. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atta, both from the Islamic jihad organisation, share membership of that organisation with an individual whom this government has placed in what is essentially low security detention in the Adelaide Hills, surrounded by the equivalent of a pool fence.
The crimes that this man has not been accused of but convicted of through an Egyptian court, in 1999, include: premeditated murder, destruction of property, firearm possession, possession of explosive devices without a permit, membership of a terrorist group and forgery of documents. He has been convicted of crimes both inside and outside Egypt. He arrived in Australia, apparently, in May last year and was subsequently, within a very short space of time, released in Inverbrackie.
Since then, ASIO and the AFP have both taken an interest in this individual. ASIO went through a process where they formally identified him on 25 August last year and, on 30 August, they notified the department of immigration that, within their low security family facility in the Adelaide Hills, they had a convicted terrorist, a member of Egyptian Islamic jihad. What do the department of immigration do? Absolutely nothing, under the failed leadership of these ministers and the Labor Party.
Subsequently and astonishingly, in November last year the Australian Federal Police, who were apparently conducting a parallel investigation, reported the same facts to the department of immigration that, within their Inverbrackie low security facility, they were holding a convicted Egyptian terrorist. What did the department do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, nothing happened to this individual, even though Australia's domestic security agency and the Australian Federal Police had reported who he was to the department. Nothing happened to this individual until the West Australianpublished a story, on 16 April this year, that he was being held in Inverbrackie. Only subsequent to that story being published was this individual taken from low security and placed in the more secure environment of the Villawood Detention Centre. Once the matter was raised in the newspapers I wrote to the minister in my capacity as the acting shadow minister for immigration. He wrote back to me and he said:
Where further information of a security or criminal nature comes to hand, the department works with relevant agencies to ensure placements remain appropriate.
Does this minister, Minister O'Connor, sitting at the table, seriously believe that Inverbrackie, a family detention facility, is an appropriate place for a convicted Jihadist terrorist? If he does, in one minute's time he will be able to get up and explain to the House why he feels that is appropriate.
If this were the only situation we were dealing with in terms of grave security breaches for people who have come here courtesy of people smugglers then it would be bad enough. But what we know is that there are other cases—maybe many other cases. For instance, a Sri Lankan man accused of murder arrives in Australia courtesy of a people smuggler and he is not released into low security detention; he is released into the community on a bridging visa. And there was a suspected Iranian drug smuggler—again, held in a low security environment.
It is bad enough that we have lost control over who is coming here—and if you cannot control who comes here then you will leave that space open for criminals to take advantage of our border weakness—but when people are dealt with in this way, and when they have been identified as people who surely pose a danger to the Australian community, then we would expect that any government that takes national security seriously would make sure that they are housed in appropriate detention accommodation. But this government have failed to do that, and they have failed this test of national security.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:23): I have listened to both honourable members, but the reality is that this issue is being dealt with by our agencies. As I say—and it is very important for people to understand this—there have been no offences committed by this person while in Australia, and this person has been in detention all along. Indeed, there is no doubt that there has been monitoring and surveillance of that person in detention.
What we have always made clear is that we are very happy to provide briefings to the opposition. If they choose to actually have briefings—
Mr Frydenberg: That is outrageous.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong is being outrageous.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: on information that matters, that relates to national security matters, I can assure you we will provide those briefings. However, on the last occasion we provided such briefings to the opposition, to the shadow Attorney-General, we saw that some of that information was actually used publicly in a manner that was not proper—that was, in fact, improper. So we are very happy to convey to the opposition, so that they are aware of the facts, information in relation to these matters. But what we will not do in this case, or in any case equivalent to this, is to allow the opposition to play with national security like it is a political football. That is not something that an alternative government would ever contemplate doing.
This matter has been, of course, examined in estimates. Indeed, I have answered a question in question time in relation to the person and the circumstances in which he was detained. I also made it very clear that our agencies were involved beyond the detention itself, and I have made clear, too, that the person is now in high security detention.
But the fact is: the reason why this motion is being brought on today is that the member for Cook and the member for Stirling are of course trying to scare the Australian people in a way that really is quite outrageous—they are trying to scare the Australian people. What we know is: when they have nothing positive to say in relation to a whole range of areas of public policy, the opposition leader authorises a number of frontbenchers to try and create fear and anxiety in this country. Well, that is not going to be the appropriate response in this instance, and nor is it the way in which we should be dealing with these matters.
I make it very clear again: if the shadow minister, the member for Cook, or the member for Stirling want to be briefed more fully on this, then I can assure those members opposite that those briefings will be forthcoming so that they can actually be provided with all of the information. And if they have any questions arising out of such briefings, I am certainly happy for those questions to be put—with one caveat, and one caveat only: that that information is not disclosed publicly or used as a political plaything. Yet that is what we have seen done by the shadow Attorney-General and indeed other members of the opposition in recent times.
We have, of course, some very serious issues to deal with here, but it is quite extraordinary that the opposition want to, on the one hand, raise issues of national security and border protection but, on the other hand, not listen to the experts when it comes to dealing with our borders. It is quite extraordinary that they want to raise matters here today but, when it comes to the experts making recommendations about protecting our borders, where are they then? Where is Tony Abbott then?
Mr Keenan: Did you know this guy was in Inverbrackie? Were you even aware?
The SPEAKER: The member for Stirling is warned!
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, clearly, he is not there to support the experts. He has never been there to support a plan that would reduce boats. Indeed, he wants to see more boats come. He wants to see more boats come and rubs his hands every time a vessel arrives in our waters.
This was obviously made even clearer last Friday. Last Friday, the Indonesian ambassador made it very clear that they will not support the opposition leader's plan to turn back boats. He made it unequivocally clear. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may seek to make a liar of the Indonesian ambassador, but I have to say: it is a pretty outrageous thing to verbal the Indonesian ambassador in such a way.
The Leader of the Opposition is in a situation where he effectively says yes to the country that says no, Indonesia, and no to the country that says yes, Malaysia. What a ridiculous situation! We have a transit country, Malaysia, that wants to transfer arrivals in a safe manner. But the Leader of the Opposition says no to it! Yet we have a country that does not want to see an unsafe way to transfer arrivals on the high seas, in the case of Indonesia, and the opposition leader pretends he has an agreement. Well, if we want to have a debate about national security, let us talk about the lack of responsibility and leadership by the opposition leader in dealing with transit countries and countries in our region in order to put in place a very important regional response to what is a complex regional problem.
We do not have that, of course, because we do not have a compact in this parliament, and we do not have a compact in this parliament because the Leader of the Opposition has yet again refused to accept the advice of the experts. If I were to consider who I might take advice from, would I be taking it from the former chief of the Australian Defence Force, appointed by the Howard government and this government; Michael L'Estrange, a very eminent diplomat and former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and Paris Aristotle, with 25 years of refugee settlement history—three eminent Australians coming from different positions, putting a perspective, and forging recommendations for us to consider? And all we get from the opposition leader is: 'No, no, no.' That, of course, has really been exposed as being an absolutely hollow shell, because last Friday the Indonesian ambassador made it very, very clear that that unsafe proposition—unsafe, as has been advised by the chief of our Navy—to turn back boats on the high seas is unacceptable to the Indonesian government, and will not fly. That proposition—
Mr Briggs: Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This is a motion about the suspension of standing orders for an inquiry as to why there is a terrorist in a low-security facility in the Adelaide Hills—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will resume his seat. The minister has the call and will speak to the motion.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I oppose the motion because, clearly, the opposition are entirely disingenuous when it comes to this issue. They do not seek to find a compact with the government on national security matters. They have always sought to object and oppose anything that might reduce the chances of people endangering their lives at sea. They have always sought to get in the way of policies as recommended by experts which would see a reduction of vessels arriving in our waters. They have done that for political purposes. They have done it with a disregard for the men, women and children on those vessels, and they have done it with a disregard for our men and women on Customs and Naval boats that go out each and every day to interdict and stop those vessels. This disregard for our personnel is outrageous.
On top of all of that, if they think they are going to cut the Public Service by the thousands and not cut the staff of ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection then they are kidding themselves. On one hand they have made it clear they are going to cut public servants; on the other they are trying to pretend that they will ensure those agencies will continue to have the resources they have now. They will not. If we want to talk about undermining national security, if the Abbott government were ever elected and Mr Abbott ever became leader he would be cutting the staff in ASIO, in the Australian Federal Police, in Customs and Border Protection and, indeed, in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. I oppose this motion because it is put up deliberately to cause concern within our society and to create fear within our community.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (15:31): Let us make it clear that the reason the opposition want this amendment is because there is another story running on this issue today in The Guardian, which they want to make sure no-one is talking about. They want to suspend standing orders on this and they want to go out there and leak confidential meetings because they have this other attitude about the special, confidential deal they have with Indonesia, the deal that is so confidential that the Indonesian government is entirely unaware of it!
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows all too well that she is not simply the only person who knows about the Indonesian deal in Australia—she is the only person in the world, apparently, who knows about this special deal!
Mr Pyne: Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We have all been very generous about the elasticity in this debate, but clearly—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister representing the Leader of the House will refer to the motion before the Chair.
Mr BURKE: Thank you very much, Speaker. It is a rather long motion; it would be hard to find anything on the planet that is not in some way relevant—
The SPEAKER: The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:37]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:41): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:42): Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: In question time today, the Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Competiveness, claimed that I said in an interview that the coalition had an agreement with Indonesia over border protection matters, as reported in an early version of The Guardian online. This was also referred to later, during the suspension motion by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
The claim that I said the coalition had an agreement with Indonesia is not true. At no time did I say in an interview with The Guardian online or in any other interview that the coalition had either negotiated or reached an agreement with Indonesia. Indeed, I said repeatedly in that interview that the coalition in opposition cannot reach agreements with foreign governments. After I contacted The Guardian online, it has withdrawn its original headline and has now included a paragraph that stated:
Bishop emphasised it was not possible to reach any agreement with a foreign government from Opposition and no formal agreement with Indonesia had been reached.
I have stated on numerous occasions that the coalition has not reached an agreement and I seek leave to table the press release I put out this morning headed 'Guardian beat up'.
Leave not granted.
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (15:43): Speaker, I rise to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Indi claim to have been misrepresented?
Mrs MIRABELLA: Yes, I have been.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mrs MIRABELLA: In today's electronic media and several sources, the following comments were made. On some versions, this has been corrected. The first claim was that Simon McKeon had tried to contact me on Thursday and Friday last week to inform me of the decision—that being the reappointment of the CSIRO CEO. That is not correct. My office was contacted by Kimberley Shrives. It then goes on to say that 'Mr McKeon told Mrs Mirabella's office he had an important issue to discuss with her'. That is not correct. Kimberley Shrives was asked why I was requested to contact CSIRO and she refused to state what the issue was.
The report then goes on to say, 'When he was unable to talk to her he sent a text message directly to the Liberal MP, also stating he needed to discuss an important issue.' That is not correct. I received a text message on Friday after a missed call, informing me that there was a CSIRO issue that would be of interest to me. Then I was informed of the decision to reappoint Megan Clark for a further 12 months at about 14:50 on Sunday, about 40 minutes before it was made known to CSIRO staff.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (15:45): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 4 June 2013 being as follows:
(a) the House shall meet at 12 noon;
(b) the Federation Chamber shall meet from 12.10 p.m. until 1.45 p.m. and from 3.30 p.m. until 10 p.m., and standing order 193 (Members’ Constituency Statements) shall be suspended;
(c) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance; and
(d) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that she will count the House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (15:46): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the time for the meetings of the Federation Chamber for this week being varied as follows:
(1) on:
(a) Wednesday, 5 June 2013, the Federation Chamber shall meet from 9.30 a.m. until approximately 1.45 p.m. and from 3.30 p.m. until approximately 7.30 p.m.; and
(b) Thursday, 6 June 2013, the Federation Chamber shall meet from 9.30 a.m. until approximately 1.45 p.m. and from 3.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. or the adjournment of the House, whichever is the earlier; and
(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (15:47): Speaker, can I just get some clarity as to why?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (15:47): It is simply providing more opportunity for debate. We have got some long lists and a lot of business before the House.
Question agreed to.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Audit Report No. 41 of 2012-13
The SPEAKER (15:48): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No 41 of 2012-13 entitled Performance audit: the award of grants under the Supported Accommodation Innovation Fund: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (15:48): 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:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Australia’s overseas representation - punching below our weight?—Government response.
Regional Australia— House of Representatives Standing Committee—Report into certain matters relating to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan—Government response.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Australian Education Bill 2012
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 is of the view that:
(1) the Objects of the bill should be amended to read:
(a) families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs;
(b) all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education;
(c) student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socio-economic need;
(d) students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling;
(e) as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems;
(f) schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students;
(g) every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government;
(h) schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future;
(i) parents who wish to make a private contribution toward the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment; and
(j) funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.
(2) the definitions in the bill should be supplemented to define a non-systemic school as a non-government school that is not a systemic school, and a systemic school as an approved school that is approved as a member of an approved school system; and
(3) the bill should provide that the current funding arrangements be extended for a further two years, to guarantee funding certainty for schools and parents."
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (15:49): When the debate was adjourned earlier today I was referring to an article by John Hattie concerning the question of how much of a difference experienced and expert teachers make. He identified that, of all the influences that account for the variance in achievement of students, obviously the largest one, at 50 per cent, is the qualities and abilities of the student himself or herself. But the next largest factor, at 30 per cent, in the variance in achievement was due to the quality of the teacher. He makes the point—and this is a point we have made repeatedly from this side of the House—that we have to direct attention to higher quality teaching. Simply throwing money at the system, campaigning for smaller class sizes, regarding the teachers unions' industrial objectives as being consistent with good educational outcomes—that is all very misconceived. The focus has to be on the quality of the teachers.
This was brought home to us yet again in February last year when the Grattan Institute published a report following its conference that examined four high-performing school systems in our region—in Korea, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore—all of which were overtaking us to varying degrees. I quote from Ben Jensen's report where he says:
Today's centre of high performance in school education is East Asia. Four of the world's five highest-performing systems are Hong Kong, Korea, Shanghai and Singapore ... in Shanghai, the average 15-year old mathematics student is performing at a level two to three years above his or her counterpart in Australia, the USA, the UK and Europe. In recent years, many OECD countries have substantially increased education expenditure, often with disappointing results. Between 2000 and 2008, average expenditure per student rose by 34% across the OECD. Large increases in expenditure have also occurred in Australia, yet student performance has fallen.
He goes on to say:
Success in high-performing education systems in East Asia is not always the result of spending more money. Korea, for example, spends less per student than the OECD average.
I think we all know this from our own experience. I remember being a very poor student of Greek in year 9. I think I got six per cent in the annual exam, which I assume was awarded to me for spelling my name—probably only in English! And then the next year, due to a remarkable and charismatic teacher—John Sheldon, who I pay tribute to today, to his charisma and knowledge—I was so inspired to improve my performance that 12 months later I did very well and, in fact, came fourth in the state. We have all had experiences like this, where it is the outstanding teacher who makes the difference.
This is where, when the previous speaker, the member for Newcastle, was referring to the school halls program of the Rudd government and saying what a fabulous program that was, the real tragedy was, of course, that this was not directed at teachers at all. The truth is that the Gonski proposals—the so-called Gonski reforms—were simply about financial resourcing, and it is a very valuable piece of work by a very outstanding Australian. But what the government has not done is to put genuinely new money on the table, or additional money on the table. As I said earlier: it is taking with one hand and giving with the other. But, above all, it is not providing any detail as to what this money is actually going to be used for.
There is talk about giving schools more money, but how is it going to be used? The one thing that we know for sure is that just putting more money into the education system will not, in and of itself, produce better educational outcomes. The focus has to be very keenly on the quality of the teachers, rewarding teachers—good teachers—more generously and encouraging them to stay in the classroom. One of the characteristics of the Australian education system that comes up in the OECD's PISA studies—and these are the big studies on school performance and student performance across all the OECD countries—is that Australia has the narrowest range in teacher remuneration for classroom teachers between the starting salary and the highest salary you can earn while remaining in the classroom. That means that all too often the outstanding classroom teacher goes on to an administrative job—becomes a principal or a deputy principal—gets out of the classroom in order to earn more or, indeed, leaves teaching altogether.
We have to recognise that a good teacher—a really effective teacher—is very intelligent, is well educated—particularly if they are in science or mathematics; they have quantitative skills which are in enormous demand—and, above all, is an engaging and compelling communicator. Those are skills which are immensely valuable in just about every other part of the economy.
I do not think that anyone becomes a schoolteacher in order to get rich, or because the income is attractive. But, equally, we have to recognise that teachers have husbands, wives, children and obligations, and that unless the best teachers are better rewarded there will be a continual loss of them either to non-teaching roles within the educational system or, indeed, to the rest of the economy.
The most concerning thing, therefore, about the government's program is that it has this word, 'Gonski'—and my old friend, as I said earlier, has become not just a proper noun but a verb as well—but where is the detail? None of the states are yet aware of the precise funding details. What are the precise requirements? What does it really mean? The Prime Minister is seeking to get the states to sign up to what is effectively a press release. This issue is too important to be politicised in such a transparently crass way.
We have to get down to the specifics: how is this program that the government is proposing actually going to put more money into schools? Is it going to be a net increase in funding? And what is the outcome going to be for each and every teacher in the system? How is this funding going to change the quality of the teaching in the classroom? Until the government can do that, this will be seen as yet another reminder of Kevin Rudd's great campaign on health: all hype, all headlines, all press releases without the detail that is so critical to our children's future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Saffin ): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. And in relation to the word 'Gonski', the honourable member might consider that it is a gerund—a verb-noun!
Mr Turnbull: I thank the Deputy Speaker for that. On indulgence, I may say that David Gonski is just rising up the scales of grammatical achievement! He is a noun, he is a verb, he is a gerund! It is extraordinary—better than an AC!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member—that is enough!
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:57): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. I am not familiar with the data used to make comparisons with education outcomes in other countries; and, whilst I have heard some commentary about education standards in this country slipping, I nevertheless believe that Australia has a pretty good education system. Of course it could always be better, and that is what we all should be striving for.
For as long as I can remember, at each election education has been an election issue. That indicates to me two things: firstly, that the importance of education is well understood by the Australian people and by the educators we have throughout all of the schools in this country. And secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, that we still do not have the education system right, and the education system that we as a nation are striving for. So 40 years after the last major funding review was commissioned, we again have the opportunity to reassess what works, what does not and what is needed to improve education standards across Australia.
For our children, education is a continuous journey from infancy and preschool right through to adulthood and university. Each stage links to the previous one. The process cannot be changed along the way. You need a whole-of-education-life process to get it right, because one thing leads to the other, and the one it leads to is dependent on the right education being applied by the previous sector. That is why we need to get it right. Doing so will enable schools to plan for the future with a degree of confidence. This bill is not about the funding; it is about establishing a framework and some of the guiding principles that are fundamental to putting in place a good education system for all schools, both public and private.
When I visit schools in my electorate, as I often do, I have nothing but praise for the staff I meet and for their commitment to their students. I also commend each of the schools for the way they adapt and respond to the individual characteristics of their school community and for the range of opportunities schools provide to their students—opportunities in areas including sport, the arts and even humanitarian projects and the like, all of which complement academic education and better prepare students for life after school. Despite my view that Australia has a good education system, there are still too many students who either do not even complete secondary school level or, if they do, exit without the educational standards that will give them the best chance in life. In fact, according to one commentator, one in five public school students will leave school without the skills and knowledge to participate in society. That is of particular concern in today's society, when we live in a global environment. Competition for young people's future comes not only from within their own neighbourhood, state and country but from right across the world.
What is equally concerning is that many of those people whom the education system fails inevitably fall into a cycle of hardship and poverty which then flows on to their own children. Those children in turn become the children with poor educational outcomes—not because they do not have the ability or the intelligence but because they do not have the home life support that is also so important to achieving a good education. Educational outcomes are as much about home life as they are about school life. Our current education system fails those children, not because it is responsible for the problems at home but because schools are inadequately equipped to deal with problems arising at home. The National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program is a commendable program which provides a level of support, but other measures are also required. Conversely, a good education system is the nation's best strategy for overcoming the cycle of poverty and the associated social problems that inevitably flow.
This bill articulates a process by which Australia's national education system will be improved. Funding will always be a consideration. However, funding without an agreed process about how the funding will be allocated is irresponsible. The process is required because Australia's education system has become a shared responsibility between the federal government, the eight separate states and territories, and parents, many of whom choose to additionally fund their children's education by enrolling them in private schools. For a policy to ensure that every child is treated equally and fairly under those circumstances requires an agreed framework based on guiding principles. This legislation sets out those guiding principles. The first step is to reach agreement on those principles between all the parties who have a stake in this matter. Those principles were clearly spelt out by the Prime Minister in her second reading speech. For the record, I will restate them. Principle 1 is a new citizenship entitlement. Principle 2 is new goals for Australian education by 2025. Principle 3 is a new national plan for school improvement. Principle 4 is new principles for school funding. Principle 5 is a new link between school funding and school improvement.
These principles and the framework that this legislation establishes build on earlier educational reforms implemented by the government since coming to office in 2007, reforms which were matched by significant funding allocations. In our first four years, this government invested over $65 billion in schools, almost double the $32.9 billion spent over the last four years of the Howard government. We are also investing a record $23.2 billion in early childhood education and care over the next four years. This government implemented the largest school modernisation program in the nation's history, with 24,000 projects in around 9½ thousand schools, including around 3,000 libraries being funded—a program applauded and appreciated by every principal of a school in my electorate whom I have spoken with and applauded by the leaders of the Lutheran, Catholic and independent schools sectors in South Australia in their discussions with me. It is funding that has enabled schools to provide much-needed modern facilities that would otherwise not have been possible in the foreseeable future and which will make a difference for the better for the students who attend those schools. In addition to the school modernisation program, to date the government has approved $1.2 billion for more than 370 trade training centres, which will benefit about 1,070 schools; and more than 967,000 computers have been delivered to schools around Australia. Other reforms include the implementation of the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, the My School website, the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality and the National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy.
The amendments from the opposition are nothing more than an attempt to defer consideration of this bill because the opposition have no policy response of their own to the Gonski report. This bill was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment. That committee has now reported back. Other than some minor amendments—I believe there are four of them—the committee has recommended that this legislation be passed. I am encouraged by that, because this is an important matter. Having the committee look at the legislation was quite appropriate, but it is interesting to note that the committee has now recommended that it be passed.
Statements made by members opposite about the importance of education are not commitments. What we have not seen from members opposite, to date, is their own commitment to education in this country. We have heard plenty of criticism about the fact that this bill does not have any details with respect to funding. Well, rather than move the amendments that they have done, why didn't they move amendments which included specific amounts of funding? They could have made their position absolutely clear if they wanted to simply by doing that, but they did not. When it comes to funding, we know what the track record of the coalition is with respect to education, because in the 2010 election the coalition were prepared to cut $2.8 billion of education funding.
The Australian people quite rightly have a right to know what the coalition policy is with respect to the response to the Gonski report. The coalition have had some six years in opposition to develop their policy. They have had almost 18 months since the Gonski report was handed down in December 2011 to come to a policy decision on it, yet to date they have made no comment at all other than to oppose this bill. From what I understand, what they are proposing to do if elected in September this year is to engage in further discussions with the education sectors across this country. One of the urgent things about all of this is that the schools need to have certainty of funding with respect to 2014 and onwards. What the coalition is effectively saying to schools is: 'We will not make any commitments with respect to that, and you will have to wait till after September of this year to know what funding you are likely to get if we are elected. In the meantime, we may continue with the current funding model.' Frankly, that is unacceptable and it certainly does not give any confidence to the schools around the country as to what level of funding they might get from 2014 onwards.
The government's position with respect to funding, however, is clear. The minister and the Prime Minister have made it absolutely perfectly clear. There will be $9.8 billion of funding over the next six years. That will be $9.8 billion of additional funding. Under the agreements being negotiated with the states and territories, for every $2 of federal funding there will be an additional $1 of state or territory government funding, bringing the total additional education funding that schools across Australia can expect to over $14 billion over the next six years. That is the certainty that this government is committing to. Yes, there are ongoing negotiations and discussions still taking place between the government and the various state and territory governments. I am pleased to see that the New South Wales and ACT governments have already agreed to the new funding model, and I have no doubt that other states will also come on board once the negotiations have been completed. I recall an answer in question time only last week from the minister for education that there are also ongoing discussions and negotiations between the government and the Catholic and independent school sectors, and it is quite appropriate that those discussions take place. But, at the end of the discussions, the bottom line is that there will be an additional $14 billion over the next six years if all of the parties agree to the reforms that this government is committing to, and this government is committing to $9.8 billion of those funds.
What I would say to those states that are still negotiating is: by all means you have the right to negotiate, but this is an opportunity to reform education funding in your state and across Australia—a reform that is now 40 years overdue since the last time we had a good look at education funding and the education needs of this country. We have had a report brought back to us by Mr David Gonski. There has been plenty of time for that report to be debated and considered across Australia. Most of the schools that I have gone to and discussed it with are keen to ensure that the general principles outlined in the Gonski reforms come to be, and this government has committed to ensuring that that will happen and is trying to do all it can to make sure not only that we reform the system as a system but that we support those reforms with the necessary funding. What I say to those states that are still negotiating is: support these reforms, because if you do not then what you are doing is denying the students and young people in your state the opportunity for a better future that they will get if we can have a nationally consistent and properly funded education system right across Australia.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:12): It has come to this: our national parliament debating a 1,400-word pamphlet at five minutes to midnight. The government has had six years to get this right, and we find that at the last minute we are presented with figures that nobody believes—not state governments, not the school sector and not my constituents. Masquerading as an education bill is a pamphlet that pretends to set out a plan for education for all children, pretends to make schooling more equitable—whatever that should mean—and pretends to return Australia to the top five nations in the world while, under the watch of this government, it has actually gone the other way. At five minutes to midnight, we are being asked to believe a federal government that has run out of ideas on every other policy front and, in this parliament today, sets out what purports to be a plan for the future of Australia's education. It is a government that has failed to index early childhood education and ripped billions out of university education yet, straight-faced, talks to the Australian people and complains that it cannot get a bill through that can guarantee the educational future of this country.
The Australian Education Bill 2012 is a pamphlet devoid of any detail. It is a pamphlet claiming that it can make Australia the world's best, from a government that does not have a plan for five minutes from now, let alone five years or a decade. We in this great country always wanted a government that planned for the future, but never at any moment did we want a government that abdicated the more important role of governing for today at the same time. We have a government quite capable of reeling off massive figures in the billions of dollars on the pretext that first you need to vote for it again both this year and in three years time. But what is its plan for the next three years? Well, you need to go to the budget papers and see that all of the estimates that were accurate last year about indexation of education have been quickly Tipp-Exed out and replaced with new estimates for what the average government increase in recurrent education will be. It used to be much higher than it is now claimed to be. We cannot find where those numbers come from. No, they are simply new numbers, designed to make the Gonski plan on offer better than it actually is.
All the money that is promised around the country of $16.2 billion is derived from three basic facts. First, they assume that everyone signs up and the states—who already have stressed budgets with no chance to increase their tax base—will put in a two for one offer which states are saying is nigh impossible. Second, we know overall that there is a $4.7 billion cut through clever budget manipulation of the indexation of education funding. It was all happening until the most recent budget when that was basically expropriated away. Then, third, there is a vague promise of $9.8 billion—more money than anyone in this gallery can even dream of—flowing into education, not this term and not the next election term but the term after that. We are wondering who in this chamber will even be here to keep those promises.
What we need is a government so committed to education that they can save, get their budget spending under control and run the economy so that, like every government before them, they can save the money to invest in education. But that concept is long gone. The notion that one saves in order to spend has long been destroyed and now we have vague and mostly irrelevant promises. The $2.8 billion that is even meant to go into schools in the next four years sounds like a reasonable figure until you take out the $2.1 billion that has been removed. The discontinued national partnerships are gone, the reward payments for teachers are gone, the cash bonuses for schools are gone, literacy and numeracy funding are gone. That is all removed with the other hand as Peter is busily robbing Paul. These are all discontinued programs which have not in any way been explained by the government and there is simply no detail on what this fund really sets out to do.
It is a good time to read out the 10 essential principles that the coalition commits to in running an education system and which every Australian deserves to know. Families must have a right to choose where and how they meet their education needs, values and beliefs. All children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education wherever they are. Student funding must be based on fair, objective and, most importantly, transparent criteria. Every school deserves to know if it is better or worse off. Students with similar needs must be treated comparably wherever they are and never should we be satisfied that large numbers of students do not attend school in this great nation. Decisions, wherever possible, must be made by local parents and school communities wherever that can be achieved and every Australian student is absolutely entitled to a basic grant for their education from the Commonwealth, after all the Commonwealth is the main collector of a range of national taxes. Schools and parents need a high degree of certainty. After six years and for all the claims from the government—and people have not yet seen a coalition policy—this Labor government now, and even before in opposition, has never given a clear signal that it will protect schools and that no school will be worse off. We are yet to hear that commitment made. Schools should not be penalised, not for their efforts in fund raising nor for encouraging private investment in education. Lastly, funding arrangements must be simple enough so that schools can direct that funding where they wish to education outcomes or to increase productivity and quality in their schools.
What we have in this pamphlet before us is a definitional problem because still while it is being debated in this chamber there is not a clear supplemental definition about what comprises a systemic or a non-systemic school. We know that Catholic education sits in the systemic column but there clearly is not information about how that funding can flow from a Commonwealth to non-government systems. I can understand that is a massive concern for schools in my electorate, many of whom are highly efficient, highly successful, low-fee independent schools.
Everyone in Australia does know there is now a 30 June deadline, but states are increasingly finding it a highly unsatisfactory arrangement dealing with this Prime Minister: (a) because the numbers do not add up, (b) because she is not negotiating constructively, (c) because there is a sense of panic in this government and we are not quite sure what they are going to do next and (d) because in my great state alone, where there are 2,000 schools across that largely decentralised population, up to 300 schools have no idea if they will be better or worse off. There is no commitment to those 300 schools and I would argue that any reform of education begins from the simple proposition that the current funding enjoyed by every school is secured and any of the indexation is guaranteed. But in fact that is not the case at the moment.
In my electorate I have some of the largest and finest state schools and also, as I have said, some great low-fee independent schools. Not one of those school communities would brook a cut to their funding but, as long as there are 300 schools in Queensland, it is a reasonable proposition—given that I cover about one-thirtieth of Queensland—that a number of schools in the electorate of Bowman are under threat. I am not being histrionic or alarmist, but until you can rule it out we cannot have a basic and honest conversation about how we can index and increase funding. That basic starting point must be absolutely settled and that the funding they currently enjoy will not be cut.
If you look at the debate that is occurring at the moment and the increasing sense of panic from a Commonwealth government that effectively at five minutes to midnight is trying to strike an education deal that they have had six months to put together, it is quite clear that there is very little bargaining in good faith. I know that we have seen a majority of mainland states still not agreeing. There are three basic numbers that we cannot get an answer on from this government. This debate is the right time to come forward and be completely frank about three things. The first one is that despite the claims in the next budget estimates—this is where a government puts skin in the game and promises what they commit to for the next four years—precisely what is the state of education investment? On our side of politics we claim a $325 million cut. That is because of all of the changes to national partnership agreements and the backloading by a government that up until 12 months ago actually held onto that almost ephemeral dream that they could still create a budget surplus. But no, it is a government that after five attempts has had five failures. You would have to go back decades to find a Labor government that can actually raise the money that they also promise with the other hand.
With that in mind, there is absolutely no sign of where this money will come from. So when you hear a Labor politician around the country promising money that ends in the word 'billions' you have to ask this very simple question: from where does the money come? It is a government that is quite prepared to backload its promises so that most of the money you will hear them promising is appearing not after this election but after the next one. This is a government that has barely been able to predict exactly what is going to happen with terms of trade, the mining boom and the costs of their own programs, but again at five minutes to midnight they want us to believe their education promises for 2017.
I for one—and I know there are many people out there listening—would just ask a simple question of this government: can you balance a budget? No. Do you have fiscal spending under control? No. There is very little disagreement from any economic analyst about those factors. So long as those basic antecedents cannot be mastered by this government, nothing they promise about education can work. It is a government fighting over the crumbs. It is a government unable to grow the cake. It is a government unable to budget for the future. It is a government that fundamentally cannot be trusted on education.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (16:23): The recommendations for sweeping reform of education in Australia proposed by David Gonski provide the blueprint for necessary and affordable reform and must be adopted. Like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the so-called Gonski reforms are genuinely nation changing and just the sort of strategic reforms that the federal parliament should be working to achieve. They have my support.
To me, the great attraction of Gonski is not just the promise of a big increase in spending on education in Australia, as attractive as that obviously is. Even more important is the promise to finally get over the divisive public-versus-private dispute and instead to focus on the funding of education based on need.
And need there certainly is. Despite Australia being one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world, education remains seriously underfunded, and this is increasingly being reflected in any number of indicators. For instance, according to the Australian Education Union, students in disadvantaged areas are up to three years behind those of the same age who live in wealthy areas and one in seven 15-year-old students in Australia does not have basic reading skills. Moreover, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Program for International Student Assessment, by the age of 15 more than one-third of Australia's Indigenous students 'do not have the adequate skills and knowledge in reading literacy to meet real-life challenges and may well be disadvantaged in their lives beyond school'. No wonder Australian Education Union Federal President, Angelo Gavrielatos, has said the NAPLAN national report, by highlighting the achievement gap, confirms the urgent need for reform of the way our schools are funded.
The statistical evidence in support of implementing the Gonski reforms is sizeable and persuasive. For instance, the OECD reports that the bottom 10 per cent of maths students in Shanghai perform at a level that is 21 months ahead of the bottom 10 per cent of students in Australia. The OECD has also found that between 2000 and 2009 Korea's mean reading score improved by 15 points, which is equivalent to nearly five months learning, while Australia's fell by almost the same amount. Moreover, the Grattan Institute has consistently reported that, even where funding has been increased under the current scheme, educational outcomes have stagnated. In other words, Australia is being left behind—left behind by our economic competitors at that—the result being that not only are our students increasingly ill-prepared for their futures; but Australia as a nation is increasingly ill-prepared to compete in the future global economy.
One of the single biggest impediments to turning this situation around is that for decades now the vitally important area of education policy has been a public-versus-private, have-versus-have-not battleground. But David Gonski has given us a pathway through this by detailing a needs based funding arrangement where all students, regardless of where they are schooled—public, independent or Catholic; it doesn't matter—are treated as equal, with those in special need being given the extra support they need. This is, I suggest, a fundamentally fairer approach and one that removes the ideological stumbling block that has limited funding to a school-centric model for so long.
Despite my support for the Gonski reforms, I do feel that it is important to ring some alarm bells here. For instance, this legislation is flimsy and hardly the sort of detailed material we were all expecting, especially considering the time the government has taken to prepare the bill and the nation-changing scope of it. Another concern I have is that the government is inclined to tinker with Gonski's recommendations. Already some of the settings the Independent Schools Council of Australia, among others, were happy enough with look set to change, the result being a diminishing support for the reforms among non-government schools.
The government really must tread very carefully here because, if the spirit of Gonski's recommendations is lost, then so too will be lost the spirit of goodwill which existed across much of the education sector when Gonski's recommendations were first announced. Frankly, I cannot emphasise this point strongly enough. Unless and until the focus is genuinely on funding all students consistently regardless of where they are schooled and on funding disadvantaged students and schools to fully address that disadvantage regardless of whether or not they are public or private students or schools, we will keep coming back to the bun fight over public versus private and it will be the students more than anyone else who will suffer.
School funding must be according to need. Regrettably, that very essence of Gonski is at real risk of being watered down, and already the public-versus-private debate has crept back into the conversation. This must be stopped in its tracks, and that would be achieved if the government clearly explained how this reform is to be fully funded so corners do not need to be cut or funding priorities introduced. The reforms would also be greatly helped if the opposition stopped politicising the issue and reverting to type on the whole private school issue.
As far as the funding goes let us get one thing straight. By some estimates Australia spends $1 billion a week on education—yes, that is right: $1 billion a week—so what Gonski is asking for here, an additional $6.5 billion a year, as much as that sounds and in fact is, is still only a little more than a 10 per cent increase in education funding, or in other words an additional six weeks worth. Surely, in one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the world, with an annual federal budget of maybe $350,000 million, we can find the money for such a significant and nation-changing reform. If we cannot find such a relatively small amount of money for such an important purpose, then what on earth is public money for?
I said David Gonski recommended an increase in spending of $6.5 billion a year—that is, in fact, the indexed amount; his original recommendation being $5 billion a year, or $30 billion over six years—but the government's proposal is less than half of that and a significant slice comes from tertiary education. That disappoints me greatly because it means that in reality the government is seeking to roll out a much diminished version of what David Gonski expertly judged to be needed if we are to properly fund education in this country. I know money is tight and that means some important areas of government spending must be cut back, but surely we can find the cash to properly fund education. Surely it is just about priorities—the regrettable reality being that the Gonski reforms, being so loudly trumpeted by the government, is but a fraction of what is really needed and what could in fact be funded if there were the political will to do so.
That money should not come from the tertiary sector. The government's decision to strip $2.8 billion from the universities and their students is an appalling error of judgement. For heaven's sake what a truly dumb idea to cut education funding to boost education funding. No wonder the sector is up in arms, and I say power to the arms of the National Tertiary Education Union's campaign to have this cut overturned. In my home state of Tasmania this cut to the tertiary sector will translate into 150 job losses at the University of Tasmania at a time when UTAS is more important than ever for the way it is underpinning a sagging economy. Then there are the University of Tasmania's students, many of whom are disadvantaged and who will be hit especially hard by these cuts.
I note the Greens have suggested an amendment to the bill that would give priority to the most disadvantaged schools in the event funding overall falls short. I see the sense in that and will likely support their amendment but, frankly, it should not be necessary to be considering such a sandbagging of Gonski. The fact that we are, seriously points to the alarming realisation that these reforms are at risk of collapsing or at least being seriously diminished. If Gonski does not go ahead in any credible way the opposition will also have some explaining to do, not just for any refusal to support it in this place but also because of the behaviour of at least some of the Liberal-held states that would much rather play politics with our children's education than work cooperatively with Canberra.
Frankly, I do not care much for who pays for Gonski just so long as the job gets done. I do note that the reform is designed to be paid for by both the federal and state governments, which seems perfectly reasonable to me given the longstanding joint responsibility for education implementation and funding. However, here we are with Western Australia and Queensland in particular carrying on like pork chops, more interested it seems in the Liberal-Labor, state-federal contest than in any sort of meaningful improvement to school funding. Where all this ends up remains to be seen, especially when any number of points of detail are still to be properly addressed. For instance, what is to be done about the non-government schools that are currently deemed to be over-funded but protected by historic promises of never being worse off? This thorny issue is set to become even more problematic as the new funding model is implemented.
In closing, there is no reason whatsoever why Australia cannot have the best schools in the world, populated by the best teachers in the world, producing the best students in the world. The raw truth of the matter is that we do not and in fact we are going backwards compared to many countries. Please let us get behind Gonski and start to turn this around. Our kids need it.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (16:35): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. I start with the statement that we all want better school outcomes, but this bill before the House does not deliver those better outcomes. It is simply not good enough that in Australia today a 15-year-old student has fallen behind their Chinese, Hong Kong, Singaporean, Korean and Japanese counterparts in reading, maths and science—in some cases by more than two years.
This government thinks that if it can say the word 'Gonski' often enough people will think it is doing something for education. The answer is it is not. 'Gonski' has become this government's byword for inaction and this bill, the Australian Education Bill, is symptomatic of a broader problem. There are simply no details or funding, merely aspirational goals. The Prime Minister said that this was the most important bill of the year when she first introduced it, but it is just nine pages and 1,400 words long
It promises that the Australian schooling system will be highly equitable, provide excellent educational outcomes and see Australia placed in the top five countries for reading, science and maths by 2025. Who could disagree with such noble goals, for education is, after all, what Thomas Jefferson once described as the first defence of the nation.
But the weakness of this bill before us today is that it provides no details. What is more, the weakness of the government's position is that it has a track record of cutting government funding to schools. Just look at the last federal budget: $325 million less for schools over the forward estimates compared to what they forecast in 2012-13. The so-called new money promised to schools falls beyond the forward estimates, from 2017 onwards—another three elections away. Just look at the impact that their funding cuts have had: discontinuing the national partnership funding for low socioeconomic status schools, lowering reward payments to teachers and cash-bonus payments for schools, and literacy and numeracy funding cuts to the tune of over $2 billion. Indeed, if one looks at education funding overall, taking into account higher education and vocational education and training as well there will be $4.7 billion less over the four years to 2016. No wonder Fred Hilmer, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales and a nonpartisan figure, said of the government's cuts to higher education:
With these cuts coming we will have to slow down hiring and slow down our investment in technology. How you reconcile that with the Asian century ambition is just a joke.
On Gonski, the Prime Minister's tactics and package is a lesson in how not to win the agreement of the states and territories. The Victorian Minister for Education, Martin Dixon, has criticised the government saying, 'They should be working with us, not holding us to ransom', while his Premier, Dennis Napthine, has criticised the Prime Minister's cuts to other educational areas saying, 'This is very disappointing that the Prime Minister is seeking to rob Peter to pay Paul.' The Western Australia Premier, Colin Barnett, has said of Gonski:
I would have to be nuts to sign up to something like that … I think it's a disgraceful and shameful pretence by a Prime Minister who is not genuinely looking at education improvement, is simply playing divisive politics.
He went on to say it shows 'a disdain for Western Australia and for Western Australian children'. Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has said he has 'serious concerns' about the government's proposal making it 'impossible' for him to meet the 30 June deadline:
I just get the feeling it's a great big mirage in an election year.
Northern Territory Chief Minister, Adam Giles, said:
There will be no deal on Gonski. The model is a flawed model. It takes too much money out of higher education. It puts the Northern Territory government in a very poor financial position.
The National Catholic Education Commission 'strongly expressed' its concern over the government's funding approach, referring to the 'unsatisfactory situation that still drags on and now threatens to become a political football for several more months'. The Independent Schools Council of Australia said there is a:
… reduction in Australian government funding for schools rather than the increases to school funding that the government indicated would flow to disadvantaged students … without an appropriate level of replacement funding … independent schools will not be in a position to adequately support their disadvantaged students.
Effectively, the government is asking these states and these important peak bodies to throw their support behind the government's unfunded, unclear and unexplained proposal for the education sector. Trust what Labor does, not what Labor says. We in the opposition are simply not prepared to do that. As the member for Kooyong, with 30,000 school students in my electorate attending 52 schools, 30 of which are non-government, I am simply not prepared to trust this government. The government does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Given this government's track record with waste and mismanagement in the Building the Education Revolution, computers in schools, Schoolkids Bonus and, most of all, in declining school education standards relative to our competitor nations, we cannot simply give it the benefit of the doubt.
In contrast, we on the coalition side have a different approach. As effectively articulated by our irrepressible shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt, we have outlined 10 broad principles that guide our approach to school funding and reform. This is the subject of our amendment to the bill. Families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. As I said in my maiden speech in this place, there is bipartisan agreement with Sir Robert Menzies' proposition that 'lack of money must be no impediment to bright minds'—but it is at this point the ideological battle begins.
On this side of the chamber, we believe that parents have a fundamental right to choose the type of school they send their child to. It is a fundamental tenet of Liberal philosophy. It does not matter if it is a government or non-government school—it is their choice and it should be supported by government. In fact, to do otherwise is to deny parents, as taxpayers, equal government support for a non-government school. This in itself is inequitable. Those on the other side of the House must understand that parents who send their children to non-government schools often do so at great personal expense, but they prioritise their tight budgets to choose a school with the right culture and values for their child. And despite the financial constraints, we are seeing an increasing number of parents having to pay more and more for their child's education at non-government schools. Of the nearly 3.5 million Australian school students, 34 per cent attend non-government schools—a figure which reaches as high as 42 per cent in years 11 and 12. In the light of these numbers at non-government schools it is more important than ever that we ensure that this government's ideological approach to education does not see any student short-changed and any school lose funding under a new funding model.
The second principle of our amendment is that all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education. The third principle is that student funding needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent criteria, and distributed according to socioeconomic need. Currently, there is no detail in this bill as to whether the government's proposed funding model stacks up against this principle. The fourth principle is that students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling. The Gonski report did find that students with a disability were funded in an unfair and inequitable manner. This needs to be addressed and we continue to wait for further details from this government. The fifth principle is that as many decisions as possible should be made locally by the school community, including parents, principals and teachers. There is in this bill a reference to a new National Plan for School Improvement, which refers to 'empowering school leadership,' but there is little else. This is a really critical area of reform and one which the coalition has consistently advocated for.
The sixth principle is that school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students. Again, the bill makes reference to schools becoming more accountable to the community but little else is provided. The seventh principle is that every Australian school student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government. As mentioned earlier, as taxpayers, all parents have equal rights to government support whether their child is at a government or non-government school. In fact, by sending their children to non-government schools, those parents are cross-subsidising the public education system in the vicinity of $6,000 per child per year.
The eighth principle is that schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future. This bill provides no certainty in this regard and is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed by the government, with more detail. The ninth principle is that parents who wish to make a private contribution towards the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment. Schools should be encouraged to raise private investment, not penalised for it, as the Greens would like us to do. The government, with its record of school hit lists based on accumulated assets, needs to come clean about its intentions in this important area.
Finally, the 10th principle is that funding arrangements must be simple so that schools are able to direct funding towards education outcomes, minimise administration costs, and increase productivity and quality. Again, there is little detail in the bill to counter the impression among many stakeholders in the schooling system that the government's new proposals will substantially increase the administrative burden.
In addition, our amendment as to definitions in the bill will also provide for a proper definition of both a systemic school and a non-systemic school. That is important because, in the main, Catholic schools are funded by the Australian government through the state or territory Catholic Education Commission, which then distribute the funding among Catholic schools on a needs basis, whereas with the independent schools system, they are non-systemic and funding is provided by the Australian government directly to the school.
Through our amendment, the coalition also calls on the government to give certainty to schools by extending the current funding arrangements for another two years. With the current funding agreement for schools expiring at the end of the year, there is a lot of anxiety in the system with schools unable to appropriately plan for the year ahead and to guarantee teaching places.
In conclusion, education is just so important to the state of our nation's wellbeing and to our level of prosperity, harmony and security for tomorrow. The coalition recognise how important education is. In the event that there is no national agreement, all schools can be assured that a federal coalition government will see schools receive at least the same quantum of Commonwealth funding as they currently receive, indexed to meet the rising costs. We will also continue to empower school leadership, giving principals more autonomy, and increase the focus on standards and accountability.
The Australian people demand that we in this place get the school funding model right. I have over 50 schools in my electorate, with more than 30,000 students attending some of the best government and non-government schools that can be found anywhere in this country. It is my duty to them to uphold good policy, to advocate for good values and to ensure that they, the next leaders of our country, are provided with the best education possible. We deserve much more than what the government has produced for us today: merely pious aspirations with little detail and that is not good enough. I will do all that I can, not just in promoting our amendment to the Australian Education Bill but in all my efforts in this place to ensure that the leaders of tomorrow, the children of today, receive the best education possible, based on their parents' own personal choice.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:50): Today I am very proud to be speaking on the Australian Education Bill 2012. The purposes of the bill are numerous. I am very pleased to be speaking on an issue that is very important to us in the Labor Party, which of course is education. The purposes of the bill are to articulate and acknowledge the government's aspirations for school education and to set goals for Australian schooling that address these aspirations. Also, to commit to a national plan for improving school performance and student outcomes and to itemise the reform directions for a national plan that will achieve the government's aspirations and goals. And, finally, make agreement to implement a national plan by education authorities a prerequisite for receiving Australian government funding for schools with grants based on the outlined principles.
The bill before us lays down the cornerstone of a legislative framework that puts an excellent education for every child at the very core and centre of how Australia will deliver school funding into the future. So it is vitally important for our nation's future. We have done this because the federal Labor government understands the important role of education. We understand that it is through education that people gain the skills to be able to thrive in the world, and it is through education that people gain the knowledge and abilities to expand on those skills which will set them up for their future. Every child has the fundamental right to obtain a quality education, to reach their full capabilities and potential. It is the Labor government that has had the vision to be able to improve education throughout Australia, because we know that in the 21st century access to modern, quality schools is absolutely vital for our children, to provide that quality education.
The bill reflects our understanding that we need school-based reform for the development of our national plan for school improvement. Of course, as we know, the bill was introduced as a result of the findings of the Gonski report and, as we also know, the report found that the current funding arrangements were just not getting the best results for our students. The current arrangements are very complicated and lack transparency, so we needed to have a change. The report also showed that funding is one reason that our nation is not giving every child a great education. So there certainly was a major challenge that needed to be faced and a challenge that needed to be corrected. As I have said, we know our prosperity as a nation rests on having schools that can really compete with the best in the world, and I certainly want to make sure that every school is of a world-class standard, and that is why I definitely support this bill today.
The bill's ultimate purpose is to enable Australian schools to achieve the three fundamental and basic goals for Australian schooling. The three goals are: for Australian schooling to provide an excellent education for all students, for Australian education to be highly equitable, and for our nation to be placed in the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics by 2025. To achieve these goals, the federal government has committed itself to working with state and territory governments and the non-government sector in a bipartisan approach to bring about the full implementation of the National Plan for School Improvement. I certainly call upon those states that have not yet signed up to do so, to make sure that we can work together to get a great result for our kids across the nation.
The bill will also introduce five specific new measures to make Australian schools smarter and fairer. The first measure is a new citizenship entitlement. As the Prime Minister said in the introduction of this bill, an education for an Australian child will no longer be a privilege extended by the state from time to time; it will be an entitlement arising from their common citizenship in our nation. The second measure is new goals for Australian education. Australia must strive to be ranked in the top five countries in the world in terms of reading, science and mathematics by 2025, and I believe that, through the introduction of this bill, and if we have everyone signing up to it and being committed to it, we will see our country working towards that really important goal that we should all be working towards. The third measure is a new national plan for school improvement, and the bill will set in legislation that agreement between Commonwealth, states and territories and Catholic and independent school authorities to implement the plan in full. Our fourth measure is new principles for school funding. The bill ultimately provides a new funding standard based on what it does in fact cost to educate a student. And the fifth measure is the new link between our schools' funding and school improvement. This bill will take into account each state's and territory's individual strengths, needs and weaknesses in terms of provision for education in each varying jurisdiction. This approach will ensure that all schools are fully supported in the undertaking of such vitally important reform.
In achieving these aims, these reforms are based soundly on five fundamental directions. The directions are: quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, transparency and accountability, and meeting student need. By focusing on delivering quality teaching, we are making it essential that the teachers of our children will have the skills and support they need to deliver a high quality education. By focusing on delivering quality learning, we are ensuring that students have the opportunity to reach their full potential through a relevant and high-quality curriculum that will assist them in that process. By following a path that empowers school leadership, we are recognising that all school principals and teachers can be leaders at a local level. The reform will also make solid moves to enhance the transparency and accountability of our school funding models. This will provide data on schools and students to track performance and continue to create paths for success for our young people in their schools. Finally, by focusing on meeting student needs, we recognise that providing a quality education is not just about meeting preset criteria but about providing students with the skills that they require. Students need to be provided with the necessary skills and knowledge that they need to develop as individuals to reach their full potential, and that really is the cornerstone direction of this bill.
Even before the introduction of this bill, schools right across the nation have really seen the difference that the Labor government's commitment to education has made—in fact our doubling of investment in education over those past few years and our record on education are things that I, for one, am very proud of, particularly when I look at the improvements within my electorate. We, on this side of the House, as I say, know the importance of education and have continually worked to improve those outcomes and those particular situations for our children.
I cannot think of one better example when I reflect upon my electorate than the Building the Education Revolution. The BER and the belief in the power and transformative nature of education really was the key motivator behind our Building the Education Revolution. I have seen firsthand in my electorate of Richmond that it has been an amazing benefit for local children, parents and local communities. We have had great new halls, libraries, classrooms, science labs and so many other facilities delivered by this Labor government. And it is not just the schools that have had the benefit. The wider community have embraced many of those facilities—particularly the school halls—and I am often hearing feedback on what a vital part they have become in many smaller communities in my electorate. So I am very proud to have seen 205 projects completed over the 90 schools in Richmond, and this investment saw more than $115 million injected locally into our schools and, indeed, into the local economy.
And of course, it was not just about providing those great school improvements but also about providing very, very important local jobs as part of our economic stimulus package which, can I say, within my electorate, made a huge difference—and not just with the schools funding. In particular, our economic stimulus package was used to upgrade the Pacific Highway as well, providing necessary infrastructure and jobs in regional areas, which was vitally important at that time.
Just going back to the Building the Education Revolution: let us look at it nationally and look at what it provided. We had over $16 billion being delivered Australia-wide, through more than 24,000 projects in 9,000 schools. It truly is remarkable when you look at the major difference that it has made. Indeed, families and children in my electorate have also benefited from many other education initiatives, particularly ones such as the Schoolkids Bonus and also the MySchool website. Of course, local families have benefited from the Schoolkids Bonus. In fact, in January this year the Schoolkids Bonus gave families $205 for each child attending primary school and $410 for each child attending high school. Families will receive this again in July, bringing totals to $410 for each primary school child and $820 for each secondary school child. That means 9½ thousand local families in my electorate of Richmond have benefited from the Schoolkids Bonus since those payments commenced. It really has made a big difference to many families in terms of those costs associated with education, particularly for things like uniforms and books and all those requirements that kids need.
It really is a great insult to locals when we see the opposition—and in my area in particular the National Party are opposed to it—wanting to take away the Schoolkids Bonus, to take away something that is helping parents get their kids to school. It really is quite shameful behaviour on their behalf that they continue to oppose what is such a great initiative for helping families. When I talk about 9½ thousand families, that is a significant number of people who desperately need to be able to access that funding.
We also have the My School website; it has helped families nationally and in my electorate by providing new information, including financial data for more than 9,000 schools across Australia and information on changes in student performance. My School displays student performance over the past three years, comparing the gains made by students who were in the same school in previous years. The new information on My School will also help us to see at a local level which schools are performing well and will better inform discussion about improving school performance. Many parents in my electorate have been very pleased by the difference that My School has made in terms of them accessing information.
It is really only the federal Labor government which has consistently shown how much we value a quality education, and the education bill falls soundly within this tradition. It shows how much we are committed to making sure we can improve those educational standards. I really hope these reforms will be supported by those opposite and by state governments. I commend both the New South Wales and ACT governments, which have committed to that, and I call upon those other states to commit to the future of our children.
I particularly acknowledge the fact that in New South Wales we have Premier Barry O'Farrell and education minister Piccoli. It is not often in this place that I commend and acknowledge the role of a National Party member, but in this case I put on the record that Minister Piccoli, the education minister in New South Wales, has shown how concerned he is about kids right throughout New South Wales and kids in my area of the north coast of New South Wales—he wants to see them able to access that quality education. I sincerely hope we see the other states realising the importance and value of signing up, not using it as a political football but recognising that this is a great opportunity to be embraced for the formulation of our education system for generations to come.
I do not think we can afford to miss this opportunity to make sure we can put in place what really is a transformative approach to making sure we can improve education. We must always remember that, without a doubt, one of the most important things that governments can do is deliver future prosperity. Governments must always commit to giving that helping hand to the citizens of tomorrow, and the provision of a high-quality education is at the very cornerstone of that commitment. It is the Labor government that makes so many major reforms to shape our nation for the future and to provide for generations to come. We have recently spoken about the National Disability Insurance Scheme; we have seen what a strong commitment that is, and it is Labor governments that have committed to those many reforms over the years, whether they be in heath or education. This bill is part and parcel of that in terms of our future views and shaping the nation, and it is at the cornerstone of that.
In conclusion, it has taken the Labor government to bring this forward and legislate for this major prosperity and for our nation's future. I call upon those other states that have not signed up to do so. I reflect on what it may mean for regional students. This whole package will make such a big deal, particularly for people in regional areas, in terms of extra funding and extra loading that can be provided, and recognising the extra resources that are required for them. There are extra challenges that we have in rural areas that we do not have in the metropolitan areas. We really need to keep a focus on that. Indeed, everything we are doing to transform our education system makes massive improvements for rural and regional Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (17:04): It is a little strange standing up here this evening and talking about this Australian Education Bill 2012. We do not really have any idea what it is about. It is a bit strange. It contains nine pages and 1,400 words and sets out aspirational goals. The three suggested goals that the Prime Minister is aiming for are: for Australian schooling to provide an excellent education for all students; for Australian schooling to be highly equitable; and for Australia to be placed in the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics. Quality, equity and recognition in international testing by 2025—those aspirations are hard to disagree with.
We on this side would like all Australian schools to be the best in the world, but what we need is some detail. We need to know how the government is going to do this. If there is one thing we—especially the Australian people—have had to learn the hard way it is that you cannot trust this government to implement anything. The idea that on a whim we would just say, 'Yes, Prime Minister, we will pass this education bill and trust you with all the detail,' borders on the absurd. It is a bit like being asked to buy a house but not being allowed to look inside the house: how many rooms it has, what are the quality of those rooms, whether they are carpeted, whether there is a kitchen, whether there are bathrooms. We are being asked to say: 'Yes, Prime Minister, off you go. We trust you. We know that you will deliver on behalf of the Australian education system.' Sadly, we are not in a position to do this.
As a matter of fact, what we would like is some questions answered as to what the detail would be. Those questions are along the following lines. First, where will the at least $6.5 billion per year which the government has touted come from? Where is the money? We have no idea where the money is. All we know is the government is going to find the majority of the money in three elections' time. That is when the money is going to magically appear.
Another question is: how much will the Commonwealth contribute and how much are the states expected to find? All we know about this aspect is that this is still under negotiation, and the government is struggling. Because we have read the papers today, we know that Queensland do not seem to be very happy with the current arrangements that the Commonwealth are putting to them. We know that Victoria has the same problem. We know that Western Australia has the same issue. As a matter of fact, it seems that the government went all out to get one state on board. Given that the government have done that, there might not be much left for the other states. As the Prime Minister has set a deadline of 30 June for this to be completed and as yet she only has one state and one territory on board, it would seem that where the money is going to come from with regard to state governments is still very uncertain.
The third question that we want answered is: what programs will be cut and what taxes will the government increase to pay for this? Sadly, it seems we will have to wait for the detail on that, if the government is re-elected. Personally speaking, I hope for the benefit of the country, the government are not re-elected on 14 September. We also have questions on the leaked Gonski modelling. The only thing we have seen on what Gonski means with regard to modelling is the leaked document. The government has not transparently come out and said: 'Here is the modelling which will sit behind this bill, and this is what Gonski, in the government's form, would mean for individual schools.' The leaked modelling had 3,254 schools worse off. Which schools are worse off? Which states are they in? That is what we need to know. Is the government going to come out and say, 'We've changed the leaked modelling, and this is what it looks like now and what it would mean for individual schools'? Is the government going to be transparent with the Australian people on this issue?
Sadly, I do not think that is going to be the case, because what we are hearing behind the scenes is not only will there not be transparency but there are gag orders being put on various consultations occurring, whereby those the government take into confidence are not allowed to publicly release the detail of those discussions. We are actually seeing the reverse of proper transparency. We are seeing people being gagged, which does not mean that we can look with great faith at what the government is proposing and think that there will not be problems in the process. Once you start moving away from transparency, it usually shows that there are flaws in your approach.
When will the modelling showing the impact of this funding for each school be available? When are we going to see what the individual impact on each school will be as a result of the approach that the government says it is going to take? I say 'says it is going to take' because we have not seen the approach detailed in any form. We want to hear from the Prime Minister a guarantee that no school will increase school fees as a result of her changes. Is she going to come out and give a guarantee that some schools will not be worse off and will not have to lift fees? I look forward to hearing that from the Prime Minister. Where is the detailed response to the 41 recommendations in the Gonski review? When are we going to see the detail? The devil is in the detail, and you would have thought that this government would have learnt that by now.
How much indexation will each school and school sector receive? What will be the benchmark funding per primary and secondary school student? How much funding per student will be allocated for students with a disability? We saw some movement on this from the government today, but still questions need to be answered. Will this funding be portable between the government and non-government sectors? This is a very important point. What type of competition are we going to see brought into the school system as a result of these changes? What, if any, future capital funding arrangements will be provided for schools? We have heard that there are schools that will not move to develop extra parts of their schools. We have particular sectors in the education system which will not build new schools while they are waiting for the government to get its act together on this.
What new reporting requirements and other conditions will schools have to meet in order to qualify for government funding? Once again, we are in the dark with regard to this issue. As a matter of fact, we are hearing that the government, especially when it comes to the Catholic sector and the independent sector, wants to put more regulation in place so that how the independent and Catholic schools want to spend their money will be regulated. We hear they will need to get permission from the federal department before they can make decisions with regard to allocating funding which, in the normal course of events, they would make themselves. Those are the questions that we need answered. We need them answered soon because, if the artificial deadline of 30 June which the Prime Minister has set is to be believed, then you would think that the government would allow the public system, the independent system and the Catholic system time to look at this model and to decide whether it is in the interests of all Australians.
What will the coalition do if we are elected to government? We have our own set of principles which outline our values for schooling. These values are seen in the amendments that we have put forward to this bill. We believe that families must have the right to choose the school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. All children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education. Student funding needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent criteria, distributed according to socioeconomic need. Students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling. As many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems.
Schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their communities, families and students. It is a very important point, because if they are accountable locally that means the schools know that their community is judging their performance. And there is no greater judge of your performance than your peers, and especially when it comes to local and country communities that is absolutely the case.
Every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government. Schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future. Parents who wish to make a private contribution towards the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment. Funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding towards education outcomes, minimising administration costs and increasing productivity and quality.
They are the principles that will guide us. They are the principles that have guided the amendments to this bill that we have put forward. Until we see the detail, they are the amendments we are going to base our approach on to this bill. I would like to commend our shadow minister because he has had the sense to give the government a chance to come in and provide the detail. He has also provided a way for the government to be able to say: 'We're really not competent enough to do this. Everything like this that we have done we have failed on.' What we are putting forward is a way out for the government—a way for the government to say, 'Yes, you're right, this is too big a reform for us to handle.' So let's postpone it for a couple of years. Let's cement the existing funding arrangement to keep it in place and then, hopefully, we can get a competent government in place that can do the reform that is necessary. That is what our shadow education minister has put in place, and I think it is a pretty reasonable compromise. It understands the incompetence of the other side and reflects the need for us to get some certainty into the funding arrangement in the next couple of years and then for a competent government to come along and do the necessary reform.
I would like to congratulate our shadow minister for that very sensible and reasonable approach he has adopted on this bill. He has acted in extreme good faith in the approach that he has taken and given the government a very good way out on this bill. As I explained at the start, it is very difficult to come in here and talk about a bill on education funding and talk about reform of those education funding arrangements without any detail. I understand the government is negotiating, or trying to negotiate, in good faith with the states. The fact that they have left it to the eleventh hour, the fact that they have not got their act together, the fact that we have Queensland coming out today and saying, 'Sorry, we don't trust your government and what you are putting towards us,' show that this is lacking in credibility. So I think the best thing is for the government to admit, 'Yep, too hard, too difficult, we're not competent enough,' and for us to roll over the existing funding for a couple of years and put reform of education in competent hands. Hopefully, the Australian people will recognise that the competent hands will be on this side, if they see fit to vote us into office come 14 September.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (17:19): I am really pleased to be able to talk on education, having been involved in education for some 25 years of my previous working life. I would like to comment on some of the statements made by my friend the member for Wannon—and he would expect this. What we have on this side is a plan which involves funding, certainty of funding, and expectations and improvements related to this funding for both public and non-public schooling by state and territory governments along with the federal government.
What we got from the other side is, firstly, a desperate attempt to try and defend the opposition spokesperson on education, who thinks educational policy is a racehorse, because that is as close as he would ever get in reality to it. Secondly, what we got from every member who has spoken so far, with the templated answers they are provided with, is a set of values. So we have got a plan versus a set of values. I ask all of those listening to this debate to weigh up what they believe is the substance in both these approaches. I do not think they will take very long to work out that one side indeed has a plan and is working assiduously to see that plan reach fulfilment in a very, very important sector of public policy and in socioeconomic outcomes for this country, and the other side is effectively saying no.
I think everyone observing this debate or participating in it respects the Gonski review. One of the fundamental statements of the Gonski review was that we have a broken funding system and we need to give that funding system certitude and assurance into the future no matter where you are educated—both in the school and in the state and nationally. Some of the factors that affect and are affected by the school funding debate are the outcomes of our schooling system. We really do have some challenges we all have to face. It is no good passing the buck. We have got to deal with it
Part and parcel of that is about resourcing; part and parcel of that is about giving certitude to funding into the future; and part and parcel of that is also having expectations and outcomes from this funding, which we want applied nationally.
For instance, year 9 students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can be up to three years behind better-off peers. That is a disgrace. The international tests have showed that our year 4s have performed the worst in reading and literacy out of all English-speaking countries. That is disgraceful! And on average, Indigenous students are two to three years behind non-Indigenous students in reading and numeracy.
What do we do about this, apart from wring our hands, huff and puff and carry on like pork chops in this place? The government is seeking a plan in three parts. First: fix the school funding system that the independent Gonski review found is leaving too many students behind. The intent of this plan and the funding behind it, irrespective of what is said opposite—and by some states at this stage, doing their argy-bargy, which you expect in this Federation and when they do their argy-bargy discussions—is to fund all Australian schools under the same approach—all Australian schools—with a set amount per student and extra funding to tackle disadvantage.
When we look at this extra funding to tackle disadvantage we have, first and foremost, this Schooling Resource Standard which we talk about, recommended by the Gonski review. It is widely endorsed by teaching and education experts. So we have this fundamental benchmark of funding for all students. I am no educational economist nor, indeed, a statistician et cetera, but it is based on that standard which we believe provides the best of outcomes in the best of schools for those students.
On top of that, this is in order to overcome need—and we all agree in this place that surely, the basis of our funding should be a needs-based funding system, no matter where that student is. This is the hardest thing for people to comprehend, no matter where those students are and in what sector or what state or territory. What are some of these 'extra' areas, or 'loadings', as we call them, on top of this benchmark, which will all determine the best outcome for students?
Here are some of these extra loadings that students and schools need for more support. First and foremost is a low socioeconomic status loading. Just to fill listeners in, this ranges from $695 per primary student and $914 per secondary student, to $4,635 per primary student and $6,996 per secondary student. This is a loading where there is need based on low socioeconomic status. There is an Indigenous loading, where it is appropriate, and this will range from $1,854 per primary student and $2,439 per secondary student, to $11,000 per primary student and $14,000-plus per secondary student. Again, these are based on the levels of need.
Students with limited English skills are set at 10 per cent of the per student amount. There is a location loading applied to each school's per student Schooling Resource Standard amounts, plus any school size amount. There is a size loading as well and there is a loading for students with disabilities, intended to be phased in from 2015 once a nationally consistent data collection on students with disabilities has been established.
We need to ensure that every school has the money it needs to do a great job. I do not think that any of us disagree with that. We need to ensure that funding is there every year, hence the certainty of funding: not just funding by itself but certainty of funding into the future. To ensure certainty, states and territories are offered $9.4 billion across the next six years under a two-for-one funding deal that, if fully implemented, will see an extra $14.5 billion invested in school education across that time and across all sectors.
To give effect to this, the Commonwealth will increase its school education budget by 4.7 per cent every year, and we are asking the states and territories to commit to three per cent growth in return. So this is a genuine funding-guaranteed partnership, not just on the total amounts but giving certainty into the future—something we have never had before. What will this mean? There will be enough funding for every school to get, as a bare minimum, its current funding—I say that again: every school to get its current funding—plus indexation of three per cent. The vast majority of schools currently below their Schooling Resource Standard will get more. I will return to the more specific implications of this possibility and/or its rejection a little bit later, if I have time.
The third part of our plan is really important because it is no good just relying on funding. We have to have outcomes, we have to have benchmarks and we have to have expectations across the nation, no matter what school you go to. None of us, I believe would disagree with that. To ensure that this investment in schools is coupled with wide-ranging school improvement reforms is an absolute necessity. So the plan is more than allocating moneys; it involves benchmarking. I would like to have a look at some of those, if I can, and just share with you some of the expectations.
There are higher entry standards for teachers and a requirement that new teachers be in the top 30 per cent of the population for literacy and numeracy before they can graduate. We rely most heavily and most significantly on our teachers—and I was proud to be one. I do not think you can invest in anything more important, apart from students, but in those who influence the most, and that is in our teachers. It should be one of the highest remunerated and highest status professions in this country. I think we all would agree with that, and I think we could do a hell of a lot more to ensure that that happens.
That has something to do with standards. Not only is it related to standards for entry into the teaching profession; it is also about support and funding for the professional development of teachers who are now in the system—all the way through. And maybe it is also about looking at resourcing different streams of support for teachers and their careers inside the teaching profession. Rather than having to move over to administration, they could remain in our classrooms, in our teaching and learning environments, and bring that fantastic expertise that they have.
There should be more support for new teachers. There is nothing more daunting than facing your first class or two. It is really important that we properly resource our schools in order to reduce their workload and to mentor them, particularly in the first couple of years. It is really important. It can mean so many more teachers staying in our system, being absolutely comfortable with our system, and being supported doing that. It is about ongoing professional training for all teachers and principals, so their skills remain up to date and students benefit from the best teaching methods.
There are annual performance reviews for every teacher. I know people get touchy about annual reviews—I suppose we have them every three years—but it is part and parcel of the modern workforce and the modern workplace; and nothing keeps you more on your toes and on your mettle than to actually be reviewed. Importantly, you are doing this to improve your skills; not to worry about the negative side of it. There is extra training for teachers in managing disruptive behaviour and dealing with bullying—we cannot deny that it is going on in all our schools—so every child in the classroom gets a chance to learn in a safe environment.
There are personalised learning plans for students who need extra help; more power for principals, like hiring staff and controlling the budget; better information on the My School website; a school improvement plan for every school; extra help for students that need to improve their results, and successful schools will share their ideas and strategies with others; access to learning an Asian language for all students from their first day at school; the Australian curriculum being implemented in every school and in every subject; an early years reading blitz for foundation to year 3 students to provide early intervention to students who need it; expansion of NAPLAN to cover science literacy; an annual state of our schools report to help track student performance; and so on it goes.
We are effectively saying that we need to guarantee funding, and that funding is benchmarked to a particular resource standard that gives the best of education to our students. Above and beyond that, there is a loading and that may involve Indigeneity, low socioeconomic status, location and place—in terms of remoteness—and so forth. On top of that, we need to give certainty to this resource funding. That means into the future and it means guaranteed indexation; it means that every school will be better off than they are. We need to be able to do this into the future. Importantly, there are expectations of outcomes that we as a nation believe are fair and reasonable.
At the heart of this is a system that is currently not working. I do not care what school you go to; people of reasonable intelligence and good will know that we can do a lot more. We need to raise the standard of those who are involved in teaching our students. We need to encourage them, support them and give them the training they need, both before they go teaching and during. We need to resource our schools the best that we can, so that teaching, learning and decision making on the ground can be enhanced. We also need to guarantee funding for our schools into the future. That is what Labor offers. Those on the other side offer little more than a set of values which they are using to defend the opposition spokesman for education. (Time expired)
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (17:34): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. I take the member for Braddon at his word. He is a very good man. It is just a pity that none of what he says is actually in the bill. As a matter of fact, on Sky News on Australian Agenda on the Sunday morning just a couple of weeks ago, Minister Garrett was asked by Paul Kelly, the journalist, if he could guarantee funding, or what was the funding model for schools next year, and he simply cannot answer.
It is interesting to note also that the explanatory memorandum is actually a larger document than the bill itself. The explanatory memorandum is chock-a-block full of phrases such as 'an excellent education', 'quality teaching', 'quality learning', 'empowered school leadership' and the like. This bill is supposed to be the framework to lay the foundations onto which we put the dressing which will make up the future of the education system of the nation. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the framework to a structure, or the laying of foundations, should be rock solid. It should be the rigid formwork onto which layers of detail can be laid, whilst keeping the shape and the structure and the integrity intact, as it was intended. This bill does none of that. It is chronically open to interpretation. Reading this bill and the explanatory memorandum is a bit like watching that classic Australian film The Castle. What the minister is trying to get across here is the 'feel' or the 'vibe' of education, and it fails at any level to give any real direction.
This government came to office in 2007 with our current Prime Minister as the education minister. She promised an education revolution. We now have a glossary of terms such as 'an excellent education' and the like. They have had since 2007 to get something up, and here we are in June 2013 with less than three sitting weeks to go before the parliament rises, and we have a bill before us which is nine pages long, including front and back covers. We have a bill which is only 1,400 words long in its entirety, which is shorter than this speech I am about to give. We have a bill which is a brochure for education. What we do not have is a blueprint for education reform. What we do not have is a bunch of state education ministers standing there saying, 'We have had our input to this, and we truly believe that it is in the best interests of our nation that this is the way we go.' We do not have a collective of private, Catholic and Christian schools standing there saying, 'We understand what the minister is saying because we have worked with him. We have had our input. We know why he has gone this way. We know he values what we bring to the table, and we will be better off and better able to provide for our students under this scheme.' It does not happen. It is not there.
On the plus side, this bill lays out aspirational goals. Its three main goals are for Australian schools to provide an excellent education for all students, and as the member for Braddon said, who would disagree with that; for Australian schooling to be highly equitable, which again is highly commendable; and for Australia to be placed among the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics, quality and equity, recognised in international testing by 2025. All these are worthy and just. What this minister and government haves done, though, is go out of their way to not include the people who will have to deliver on these promises in the discussions and the arrangements. It is the states and the private and Catholic schools which will actually have to deliver on these things.
I have an issue when it comes to how this government deals with the states, and not just on education but on health, disability and anything else where the lines of funding are blurred between state and federal governments. While not wanting to use this bill or this speech as a platform for constitutional reform, the time has surely come when the federal government cannot continue to belt the states about the head with funding conditions tied to outcome conditions without any real consultation. If we are serious about educational reform, surely we must start with the states and the other education providers by finding out what they think. Wouldn't that be a good way to start, a great starting point? To agree to this funding model takes a huge leap of faith from state governments, or there are things being said behind closed doors about which we are not aware.
For a start, one of the tenets of the explanatory memorandum is quality teaching. This government makes the statement but then cuts funding—no, how does the minister say it, 'pauses payment'—to the university sector. This is the sector charged with providing the quality teachers. The cutting or pausing of payments to the tune of $2.8 billion from the university sector must be the greatest piece of irony from this government, which is fast becoming a cross between Yes, Minister and a Monty Python sketch. State governments will have to be convinced that they will be guaranteed funding which is, in the main, coming after three more elections. I would think that those states are so trusting on this that they should go down to the bank and get a loan now for future funding and then pay it back when this government comes good after 2017. Now, that would be a courageous decision, Minister.
Let me outline for the record what the coalition is putting on the table for the education sector:
1. Families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs;
2. All children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education;
3. Student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socio-economic need;
4. Students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling.
5. As many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems.
6. Schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students.
7. Every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government.
8. Schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future.
9. Parents who wish to make a private contribution toward the cost of their child’s education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment.
10. Funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.
Those are also aspirational statements. The major difference between these coalition statements and the goals of the government is that most of ours are already in place and being paid for. States, as well as other providers, have funding certainty under the current system. We are asking an awful lot of organisations to make this change for which the government is asking in the period of time in which they are being asked to do so. They have been left in the dark as to funding for next year, let alone in 2017, when the big bucks start rolling in.
I want to provide some insight into what I see as the areas where we can get better outcomes. I must declare an interest here, in that my wife is an early childhood teacher. But, to balance that, I went to state and private schools for my education, my children have been educated in the Catholic system and my brother has been a state school teacher as well as a primary and secondary school principal in the state system. Our conversations are quite often heated but always have the interests of the child at their centre.
This is the point of differentiation between where the debate should be and where the debate is currently held by this government. This government is and always has been more concerned with the politics of the matter rather than the matter at hand. They have made the Gonski reforms this all-powerful panacea for education. They have allowed this to become: 'No matter what you want, Gonski will provide.' They have allowed the branding of themselves as 'education revolutionaries' to override the outcome of the education debate. Remember, Gonski said that there would be an additional $6 billion per year spent on educational funding. That would be an additional $24 billion over the forward estimates. The government talk a good game, but while they are talking that game they are actually delivering a cut of $325 million over the forward estimates. If we did not change a thing and held to the current funding model, there would be $4.7 billion more spent on education up to 2016 than this big-talking government will deliver under the proposed legislation.
The government dispute both those figures—and, with the world's greatest accountants, you can make any set of figures work—but they cannot dispute that what Gonski has said should be done is a far cry from what they are delivering. My younger brother, Stewart, sent me a photo of his grade 3 class from Texas State School. It was 1970, and some of the kids had shoes on. There were 33 kids in the class. The teacher, Miss Baker, was a very stern looking young woman dressed in a white minidress to the right-hand side of the photo; there was no teacher's aide or carer—yet every student in that class could read, write, add up, subtract and divide. When I started grade 1, we were still using slates and damp sponges! We were the lucky ones who got the brand-new Cuisenaire rods to help us with maths. This was something my older brother, just two years before me, did not get. Everyone in my class, taught by Mrs Whitaker, could read, write, add up, subtract and divide. Where did we go so wrong that we are dropping down the list of education rankings? Children today are every bit as smart as we were, if not smarter. So it cannot be the children.
In my discussions with educators and parents in Townsville, we lament the lack of risks in children's lives. I am not trying to glamorise my childhood, but there was a certain recklessness to life that we do not have now. We were expected to fall off our bikes. Everyone broke a bone sooner or later. In that photo of my brother's class in 1970, there are bare feet and scabbed knees. We used to fall over, we used to climb trees and we used to spin around until we fell over. We disappeared as soon as we got home in the afternoon and on weekends, and did not come home until it was dark. We children would organise our own games and referee them ourselves. Now, all sport is organised and all activities are padded. We are seeing more and more children in schools with motor skill problems. They can get to level 117 on Call of Duty or whatever but they are not allowed to do a cartwheel.
I speak to school principals and teachers from all schools in Townsville regularly. Their concerns are the same. More and more we are asking our teachers to do more than teach. I cannot remember Mrs Whittaker ever being involved in what we did at little lunch or big lunch; her job was in the classroom. It seems our teachers are not allowed to tell a parent that their child is struggling or cannot do the work. It is simply untenable that they should suggest that a child should repeat a grade. It simply would not be acceptable to us parents. It seems the good of the child has slipped here and it may be more about how they will feel rather than their personal pride and self-esteem that they actually learn to do the work. When I speak to year 12 students about the end of school days, I wish them failure. I go on to explain that if they fail they have tried. If they keep on trying they will succeed. Like a football team, you learn far more about yourself and your mates from a loss than you ever will from a win. We learn far more in life from scabbed knees than we ever will from walking across soft grass.
I will make a sweeping generalisation: push that non-risk-taker attitude to its logical end. When you have children leaving school and going to university, they naturally want to feel safe. Many choose a degree in education because they have not done anything else than school. They see their teacher as someone they can trust and they follow into education. We are currently seeing in Queensland a drop-off rate of nearly 30 per cent between the first-year and fourth-year teachers. That is not in university but in the workplace. Suddenly they find themselves confronted with just how hard you have to work when you are a teacher. Suddenly you are not just teaching a classroom; you are wiping backsides of children who are not properly toilet-trained when they come to school; you are a marriage counsellor, a confessor and keeper of secrets; you are dealing with child abuse and suspected child abuse; you are dealing with parents' expectations; you are a social worker; you are the guidance officer for children who leave home—all this while trying to work in a national curriculum, while teaching to the test for NAPLAN and trying to bring a lot of reading and its importance in life into the classroom.
We need to do more for our children to get music, art, drama and sport into their lives. They all play their part in the development of the whole child. We need teachers to teach. I believe that good and great teachers are in the system now. I do not believe that the entry level to teaching should be raised or made more difficult, because I believe that teachers exist naturally. The ability to get an idea across in a way that the recipient gets it is the gift a good teacher has. The ability to get students to try is the gift that the good teacher has in spades. Teaching is not a job; teaching is calling or trade like nursing. You can have the skills naturally; you can pick up the skills if you are prepared to work at it. Some do not and move on to another career. Others do not and stay there, to the detriment of the child. We have to back our educators to do the right thing. That may mean that some principals have to sit down with a few teachers and have that hard chat. Every business and organisation deals with this; education is no different.
I was at a speech night for Ignatius Park College in Townsville. The principal, Michael Connor, addressed the audience. The thing that struck me about his address was his absolute belief in the youth of today and that we must address the issue of engagement in education. He implored parents to be involved in their child's education but to recognise that their child may not be perfect. His words were that sometimes learning is just plain hard work and the sooner we face up to that fact the better off we will be. We are all in this together: the states, the communities, the federal government are all in this together, and the sooner we start working together and trying to do this in a collaborative approach instead of coming in with an idea and forcing it on the states the better off we will all be in the long run.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (17:49): I had taken down my posters campaigning for equity in education, particularly in regional education. I thought, certainly from a New South Wales representative's perspective, that this issue was over and that we had been successful in getting a sensible funding agreement for the future that recognises the problem and finds a shared solution between the state and the Commonwealth, across party lines, to the benefit of students and schools, where the particular loadings of regionality, rurality, Aboriginality and low SES were directly funded in the new five-year funding formula.
But that was only the battle; we still look to have the war. It is with an element of sadness that I record that there are members in this chamber who, at so many levels, say so many things and say they believe in so many things—including that education is important, that regional Australia is important and that state sovereignty is important—who now want to get in the way of all three. I will be damned if my children are going to be left with a funding model that has been clearly proven to lead to intolerable outcomes in the education data, which show about a 30 per cent gap. I will be damned as a parent, let alone as an MP, that, as a collective, the students of my communities are being told that it is some kind of normality that there is a 30 per cent gap in education data and that there is an intolerable link between that education data and the funding formula itself.
If we, as a chamber, are to accept that business as usual in the funding formula is the future then we are also accepting the education data that says Aboriginal students are coming in 30 per cent lower in performance, that rural and regional students are coming in 30 per cent lower in performance and that low-SES families—poorer families—are coming in 30 per cent lower in performance. This chamber should not accept that as some kind of normality, yet that is the position we are now seeing from the shadow education minister, from the Leader of the Opposition, from the National Party and from those who say, over and over again, that they believe in regional Australia and that they believe in education as part of the answer.
When it comes to the crunch on the principle of equity and when it comes to the crunch on exposing either a link that exists or one that is intolerable—and that is what we have got to get to the bottom of—some people are folding their tents behind political expedience and just wanting to take out a Prime Minister and a government and build some sort of campaign that this is waste and mismanagement.
What rot! We have data from the New South Wales education department and the federal education department that is clear. The education data shows that we are failing students in regional New South Wales and Australia, that we are failing Aboriginal students and that we are failing students from lower SES families. The crisis is not in education. The crisis is not in regional Australia, Aboriginal Australia or poor Australia. The crisis is in this chamber—that we are even having a political fight over this.
I plead: where are the shared solutions to the shared and clear problems that have been identified? An argument and a threat are being presented politically—despite state colleagues getting the issue; despite state colleagues in New South Wales signing up to it—that we have to accept as normal that collectively the performance of regional kids is about 30 per cent less than metropolitan kids, for no other reason—it is an apples with apples comparison—than that they are regional kids as compared to metropolitan kids.
So, yes, we can all fire up the barbecues and have lots of beers while talking about teacher performance. Yes, we can all say that students should turn up. Yes, we can all say, 'In my day kids got grazes on their knees,' as the earlier speaker contributed. Yes, we can all muse about the failings of the moment across Australia in education. But when we compare apples with apples, when we segregate this issue, why would anyone sit around a barbecue and say that, based purely on location—a student in one school in a metropolitan area versus a student in a school in a regional area—there should be a 30 per cent difference in education outcomes? You cannot win that argument around a barbecue and you should not be allowed to get away with that argument in this chamber.
It is a disgrace that we are even debating this as some sort of controversy when the data is clear. The whole point of the expert panel led by David Gonski, but also with people like Ken Boston who worked with both sides of politics, and the Kathryn Greiners of the world who are hardly aligned to the hip of Julia Gillard—these are people who say, 'We've got a problem'—was that we have got an incredibly segregated outcome in certain categories that needs to be addressed. The way to address it is to put in place specific loadings where that segregation exists: loadings for regional students; loadings for Aboriginal students; loadings for low SES students. It ain't hard. We either accept it or we accept the normal that we are going to have arguably the most segregated education data around the world, let alone in Australia and in Australian history. We will arguably entrench an education system that favours some and not others.
This chamber is not about that. No political party that I am aware of is about that. Yet I am floored that my colleagues from the Nationals in particular—those who advocate for regional Australia, supposedly—are now taking a position of arguing against regional and remote students. That is the only logical position they can take. They are arguing a case that they feel comfortable with. They think it is normal. They think it is all okay that regional and rural students and their schools are going to come in roughly 30 per cent less as per the education data.
I am somewhat saddened that this is not a bill that has the broad support of all sides in this House as it does have the broad support of the Commonwealth and certainly the state of New South Wales. I am also disappointed that more effort has not been made by some to recognise that there are one-offs in national partnership agreements, that this debate has been very cleverly reframed as one around 'the Prime Minister's got to get the majority of states in the bag or the whole thing goes boom!'
There are one-offs in national partnership agreements. Anyone from Queensland who has dealt with floods knows that, so why cannot New South Wales be protected by those who in their budget-in-reply talked about the importance of state sovereignty? Why cannot we just be left alone to actually get on with what the New South Wales National Party education minister and the New South Wales Liberal Party Premier understand—that is, the failing in the education data and the right course of action to address it? That, if it comes to that, is certainly all I request. Sure, it would make a lot of sense for other states to sign up for logic, common sense and student interests, but if they want to play their politics first, or if they find some other reason, they can knock themselves out. But this national partnership agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales must stand. It must be left alone because this matters to many schools that I represent. If there is honour in the words about state sovereignty from the Leader of the Opposition, then this is his first and greatest test at the moment.
I strongly support this legislation. I support it based on the evidence provided by the New South Wales government. I support it based on the word of the New South Wales education minister who said:
It is extremely clear that what we signed up to is better than the existing model and better than what the federal opposition is suggesting.
That is the New South Wales National Party education minister. He is not playing politics; he is looking after students and kids. He gets the shared problem, the failure in certain categories and that there needs to be a particular loading built into the funding model to address that. If we do not, we assign failure as normal. I would hope Chris Pyne, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Peter Garrett are not wanting to assign failure as normal.
Therefore, it is not up to government to explain why they are going down this path of particular loadings based on the education data that has come from the education departments state and federal and of following the expert panel report. It is up to the opposition to say why they are ignoring all that and why for some unknown reason they are choosing to assign regional students to education data that proves failure. Why do they accept as some sort of normal a message that says regional students are 30 per cent dumber than those from metropolitan areas? Because that is what you are saying by saying 'business as usual' in the funding formula. I disagree with that strongly. I think it is disgusting that we are actually having this debate in the parliament. I congratulate both Barry O'Farrell and Julia Gillard for getting on with the job based on the evidence and based on the facts. I hope this legislation can get through.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:01): It is always interesting to follow the member for Lyne. I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. When I looked at this bill, it was nine pages and 1,400 words and all I found was a series of motherhood statements. In the bill, the Prime Minister suggested there should be three goals for education: (1) for Australian schooling to provide an excellent education for students; (2) for Australian schooling to be highly equitable; and (3) for Australia to be placed in the top five countries in the reading, science, mathematics recognised in international testing by 2015.
They are simply motherhood statements which everyone in this parliament agrees with. But where is the detail? How are these goals meant to be achieved? When we go through the bill, we find that this bill contains no detail whatsoever of how much money will be available. It provides no detail on which level of government will be required to stump up this additional funding. There are no details at all on how the new funding model will operate. There are no details on how much each individual school will receive. There are no details of how this funding will be calculated. And there are no details of what other obligations will be placed upon the sector. In fact, this bill is nothing more than spin, a simple marketing statement full of motherhood statements, meaningless motherhood statements.
This idea of spin is not always seen from this government when it comes to education. As I walk around the corridors of this place I see in many of the windows of our offices these lovely lime green signs that say 'I give a Gonski'. The statement of 'I give a Gonski' seems to resonate throughout the community and is being said over and over again by so many members of this House and by so much of the media. But what does 'I give a Gonski' actually mean? I asked a teacher on the weekend when she came up to me and asked, 'Do you give a Gonski?' I said, 'That is all very nice but what does that mean?' She ummed and ahhed for about five minutes and admitted she had no idea except that it would create more money for schools. We know that the term 'I give a Gonski' is simply marketing. It is a marketing slogan like 'Things go better with Coke' or, as Peter Costello noted, 'Lucky you're with AAMI'. It simply has little substance. But we know it is a very clever marketing scheme. We see T-shirts with 'I give a Gonski', we see hats with 'I give a Gonski', we see stickers and lapel buttons, banners and posters and corflutes all spread around with 'I give a Gonski' but very little detail. At least it is teaching our kids something about marketing, if nothing else.
If we look at 'I give a Gonski', we are told that it will provide more money for schools. In fact, the Gonski report calls for additional funding of $6.5 billion a year for schools. So if we are told that everyone on the other side of the chamber supports 'I give a Gonski', let us look at the budget papers to see how close they have gone to getting this $6.5 billion of new money for schools. When we look at the numbers, yes, we see a little bit of new money for next financial year and 2014, 2015 and 2016, but during those years we also see many cuts to existing programs. There is a $174 million cut from the redirection of the national partnership's low socioeconomic communities program. There was also, in total over that period, a $412 million cut through the redirection of the national partnership empowering local schools. The list goes on. This Labor government, this 'I give a Gonski', will see cuts of $405 million, again through redirection of the national partnership literacy and numeracy funds. It goes on. On the great rewards for teachers, the redirection again of the national partnership over the next four years will see this government cut $665 million from education. Another $203 million cut from education also goes through the redirection of the national partnership's reward for school improvements.
In fact, when we had all this up, over the next three years alone—we must be very clear about this—this government's plans with their so-called 'I give a Gonski' spending will see $889 million cut from school education. And we have members of this House running around the place telling all and sundry about the great investments they are going to make when the truth is that they going to cut $889 million from education over the next three years. This is what they are expecting us to believe, but: 'Don't worry about that. Look on to 2017, 2018 and 2019. That is when the money will flow.' So what the government is asking us to believe is that their idea of giving us more money for education is to cut those hundreds of millions of dollars in the next three years but sometime in years 5 and 6 the money will start flowing.
This government is saying: 'Trust us. Elect us at this next election, and then elect us in the election after that, and then we will deliver this extra money.' Does this government take the public for fools? This is the same government that went to the last election saying: 'Trust us. There will be no carbon tax under the government that we lead.' For the last 12 months we have time after time heard something like 300 promises of: 'Trust us. The budget will be returning to surplus come hell or high water. Trust us.' This is the government that told the member for Denison: 'Trust us. We will deliver your poker machine reforms.' We have heard from this government: 'Trust us. We will not cut back on private health insurance.' And now it is saying: 'Trust us. In five years time we will deliver you more education funding,' and in the meantime it is going to rip out $889 million for education over the next three years. This is an absolute farce.
The other speakers from our side have set out the coalition's approach
We do not want to see one school worse off. That is something those on the other side have not been able to guarantee. But if we are going to improve, if we look at the Gonski reforms, we know they are asking for $6.5 billion in new money. Over four years those Gonski reforms if implemented should deliver $39 billion. Instead of getting that $39 billion extra funding, we are seeing this government cut funds to education.
We know where that $39 billion has gone. It has gone to repay Labor's debt. We know from the budget papers that when this government was elected to office they were receiving, from the combined surpluses that the Howard and Costello government had left them, over $1,000 million in interest repayments. That works out more than $6 million for every electorate. Every member of parliament could have had $6 million every single year to spend on community programs in their own electorates. But that has been cut. The money that was set aside has all been spent. We have run up the debt. So rather than that $39 billion that should have gone into education over the next four years, the Australian population, the Australian taxpayers will be asked to pay $34½ billion simply on the interest on the debt that this Labor government has racked up. Is it any wonder that that $39 billion that David Gonski called to be invested in education is not there and instead we see cut after cut?
What should we be doing in our education system? We need to teach our kids and let them develop an entrepreneurial culture. We need to create a willingness to learn and a want to learn. We need to create an education system where they enjoy going to school. But when it comes to creating an entrepreneurial culture, again, we have seen the exact opposite from this government. We have seen the Treasurer especially guilty of this with his attacks in this parliament on some of our mining entrepreneurs. We should be telling their story in our schools to inspire our kids to go out and to take risks and to do great things. Instead, we have heard attack and demonisation.
I would also like to express my concern about the so-called NAPLAN testing. If we know one thing of socialist and totalitarian governments throughout history, they do like to keep very good records of things. The concern I have about NAPLAN is that it only measures a very small part of a child's education—maths, science and English. But that is not what a full education is about. If we are looking to improve our kids' education we need to look at their education in totality, not just determine how well they went in maths and English and tell them that is the result of the school.
My concern is if that is how we are making our judgement of our schools I am sure many of our headmasters and teachers, instead of teaching creative skills, instead of teaching an entrepreneurial culture, instead of teaching kids about music, art, sport and drama and spending time on developing those things and giving our kids the rounded education that turns them into great citizens and lets them make a great contribution to our society once they leave school, are drilling them to learn for the test. That will only end up in tragic results.
The coalition does not oppose this bill because this bill, as we said, is simply motherhood statements. There are several questions on education which this government has yet to answer following the handing down of the Gonski report. Where will this extra $6.5 billion a year that the government needs come from? What programs will the government cut and what taxes will the government increase to pay for it? We have already seen that there will be large cuts to the education sector over the next three years, before we even include the cuts to higher education. We will be seeing billions taken out of our higher education sector—again a completely backward and detrimental move.
The leaked Gonski modelling shows no fewer than 3,254 schools worse off. How much extra is it going to cost those schools to receive that funding that our Prime Minister has promised? How much funding per student is going to be allocated to children with disabilities? This bill gives us none of the answers. How will the funding with kids with disabilities be portable between government and non-government schools? These are the answers that the community wants. This government has had close to six years to give us those answers, and yet here we are in the dying days of this parliament, with less than two weeks to go, and all this government can come up with is an education bill which is no more than motherhood statements—no detail, no plan, all spin, all marketing. This bill and the way it is presented—the spin and marketing behind it—simply sum up why this government has had its time and it must go.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (18:16): My old man has only ever done one job, and that is being a welder. He has done that since he arrived here in 1966. His schooling was to the equivalent of our year 10. Mum was the same. In our family, you could pretty much count on one hand the number of people who went on to university. Even though my parents had not been through university, through formal education, in our household the thing that was valued the most was getting a good education. It was drummed into us every time we had to hand in our school reports, wondering what type of reaction we would get round the kitchen table. It did not matter that my parents had not been to university; they just knew. In dad's case, being a welder and being in the manufacturing industry, he always got hit by the booms and busts. So, for my parents, getting long-term secure employment was pretty much the priority.
I was the beneficiary of public education. If you have been in public education, you will always feel very strongly about it—as you will with whatever system you go through. There will be people on all sides of the chamber who have been through public education or through private education and feel that that system is the best way to go. Since having the honour of being elected as a member of parliament, I have been particularly strident in promoting public education. I feel very strongly about it. But one of the great things about being a member of parliament is that you get to see all aspects of your community. I have been able to see all schools, government and non-government, in my area. I have seen the great work being done at Evans High School and Doonside Technology High School, particularly with their trade training centres. I have seen some fantastic stuff at Good Shepherd Primary School, Plumpton, and at Loyola Senior High School, where they also have a trade training centre. I have visited Richard Johnson Anglican School. The schools in our area have fostered in me a determination that, regardless of the system, they all need support, particularly when it comes to helping and recognising need in our area—and certainly in our area there are neighbourhoods of great need. As Mark Burnard, the principal of the Bidwill campus of Chifley College, said publicly, it is not about the system; it is about the student. That is why I am a big supporter of what we are doing in these reforms.
For many years now, we have debated as a nation how best to fund the education of our children but also allow choice for parents as to what schooling system they think fits their needs. Different formulae have existed over those years to distribute funding to the public, Catholic and independent school systems, not without some degree of disagreement about the equity of these arrangements. Many of the changes in the past have been merely tinkering around the edges of a funding model whose time, frankly, has well and truly passed.
Recognising the shortcomings of the current model, this government undertook a once-in-a-generation review of funding for schooling, chaired by businessman and philanthropist David Gonski. I would like the record to reflect my personal appreciation—and, I have no doubt, the appreciation of the entire nation—for the work undertaken by Mr Gonski and his colleagues Ken Boston, Kathryn Greiner, Carmen Lawrence, Bill Scales and Peter Tannock. The report they handed down helped lay out the recommendations underpinning our National Plan for School Improvement, a plan that will establish a framework to ensure that by 2025 Australia's schooling system will be in the top five international performers in the key areas of reading, science and mathematics. Do not get me wrong; we have got great schools in Australia, but we can always do better, especially when it comes to making sure every student in every classroom gets the best education possible and reaches their full potential.
The results from NAPLAN reveal the challenges before us and underscore the motivation for our National Plan for School Improvement. In recent years, results have shown that one in 12 of our kids are not meeting minimum standards in reading, writing and maths. These kids are in danger of leaving school without the skills they need to hold down good long-term jobs and function effectively in society. It genuinely troubles me that about 150,000 young Australians aged between 15 and 24 have not attained year 12 or certificate III or above and are not in the labour force and/or studying in full-time education. That is about five per cent of all 15- to 24-year-olds.
The schools in the Chifley electorate, as I indicated earlier, for many years have been among the most disadvantaged in New South Wales. High school completion rates over the past decade—and this troubles me—have remained stubbornly lower than the national average, despite trends elsewhere in the state for kids to stay on at school longer. When we crunch those numbers on past NAPLAN results, we uncover the real case for implementing our National Plan for School Improvement.
For instance, the national gap in literacy between disadvantaged and advantaged students is equivalent to almost three years of schooling, and 89 per cent of disadvantaged year 3 students are below average in reading by year 9, compared to 13 per cent of advantaged students. Just as troubling, if not more so, is how Australian students' performance has slipped in international rankings. For example, in the OECD PISA tests, Australia has slipped from equal second to equal seventh in reading, from equal fifth to equal 13th in maths and from equal fourth to equal seventh in science. In our first Progress in International Reading Literacy Study test, Australian year 4 students were significantly outperformed by 21 of the 45 other countries taking part. There is a massive challenge there.
This bill not only articulates our aspiration for lifting students' performance but outlines five core reform directions of the national plan: first, to deliver better schools that will give every child the individual help they need to reach their potential; second, to lift teaching standards so the best and brightest are in charge of our schools and classrooms; third, to provide more information about schools to parents and the community; fourth, to deliver fair funding to help schools pay for the things they need, like specialist staff and modern resources; and, fifth, to help Australia remain strong and prosperous by equipping kids to get great jobs. Over the past two years, I have quite enjoyed talking with the schools in Chifley about what they were hoping for from this review, hearing from them their enthusiasm to see a response to the Gonski report and hearing what they wanted from the government's response. I have long supported in our education system the work that our local schools do in order to support and develop students. I have seen the difference that is made to the culture of schools through the quality of the senior leadership of those schools. I have seen with my own eyes at schools overseas, for instance, how a focus on teacher training and mentoring can have an impact on education outcomes.
It was certainly eye-opening to learn of the different challenges faced by different school systems in our area, as well as the common challenges that unite them. For instance, last month I met with David Fyfe, CEO of Christian Education Ministries, which operates the Australian Christian College at Marsden Park as well as in other locations around Australia. A number of the Australian Christian College campuses offer distance education as a delivery option to students in remote areas. David was keen to illustrate for me the disparity in funding provided for non-government distance education compared with other forms of education delivery. He put forward a very strong argument that students in non-government distance education were the least resourced students in Australia. Among the impacts that he highlighted to me were significantly fewer teachers than regular schools, the highest teacher-to-student ratios in the country, minimal teacher-student contact, minimal education resourcing including access to ICT, increased workload for teachers, minimal curriculum development opportunities and limited opportunities for career advancement. If our plan is to have the desired outcomes of achieving equity and meeting the needs of every student, there will need to be further discussion with this sector in order to address their needs, and I hope to pursue that further.
I am heartened that in my home state of New South Wales agreement has been reached that will deliver our national reforms. New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell has signed up to the National Plan for School Improvement, meaning schools in my state will benefit from an additional $5 billion over the next six years. Two weeks ago, I attended a ceremony at Chifley College Mount Druitt Campus which celebrated the reaching of that agreement. The fact that federal Labor and New South Wales Liberals have embraced vision beyond politics to deliver something concrete for school reform is exactly what brought teachers together at Mount Druitt. This bipartisan agreement between our governments will deliver an average of $1.6 million for every school and $4,400 for every student across the state. We have committed that for every dollar that the New South Wales government is prepared to invest, the federal government will pay two.
But, if we are to avoid having further generations of haves and have-nots, we need all the states and territories to get on board for this once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift resourcing and standards and to put money where it is needed instead of having the situation at the moment where we are being white-anted under our own eyes by the federal coalition. Just in the past week, the member for Sturt has been engaged in a very public stoush with his New South Wales LNP counterpart, Adrian Piccoli, over Mr O'Farrell's agreement with the Commonwealth. The coalition has confirmed it will tear up the agreement with the New South Wales government if it forms government in September. So on the one hand, if it is to protect the minerals of the states, the federal coalition is all for states' rights, but on the other hand, if it comes to maintaining and honouring agreements that will improve the chance of future generations of Australians to progress, it says it will basically tear up those agreements with state governments. Unbelievable!
Mr Lyons: Shame!
Mr HUSIC: It is a shame, as the member for Bass says. On 27 February this year, the member for Sturt told Radio National:
The current funding model does work, it's not a broken model.
He must be the only person in the country who thinks that. In his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear:
We won't back a so-called national education system—
The member for Sturt wrote to state premiers and territory leaders to dissuade them from reaching agreement, saying:
Under the Gillard Government’s plan this means that those could receive a much lower rate of Commonwealth indexation in the future, when the average indexation rate over the last ten years has been 5.6 per cent
Those claims that indexation will return to 5.6 per cent defy logic. Current state budget decisions and estimates show that, next year and in future, indexation will fall to around three per cent. That is less money from the Commonwealth for all schools.
The Liberal Party continue to peddle untruths about the current levels of funding for schools. They are falsely claiming that our government is cutting $326 million from school funding. But the truth is that our funding is a direct match of funding provided by the states so any reduction in Commonwealth funding for schools in my state is a direct result of a reduction in school funding by the state government. New South Wales education minister Adrian Piccoli is quite clear where he stands on the issue of how schools should be funded. He says:
The status quo would see NSW worse off, and what essentially the federal Coalition is saying is the status quo.
I listened earlier to the contribution on this debate by the member for Kooyong, and I have to agree with him on one point. He said that people should judge Labor on what it does rather than what it says. When it comes to school funding, Labor is the party that has runs on the board. The other side of politics is interested in just taking us back to the Howard years or softening us up to such things as larger class sizes, as the member for Sturt has been on the public record doing. I am more than happy to put our record up against those opposite and let others decide who they trust to provide the best outcomes for their kids—our students.
This financial year, our government will invest $13.6 billion in our schools in stark contrast to the $8.5 billion spent in the last financial year of the Howard government. In our first four years of government we invested over $65 billion in schools while the Howard government spent only $32.9 billion in its last four years of office. To keep people in jobs, this government built or upgraded school facilities across the country—almost 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools including 3,000 libraries. In Chifley alone, that equates to $140 million spent in 67 schools.
Those on the other side of the chamber opposed the stimulus measures, which included the investment in the Building the Education Revolution program and helped save the country from recession. In government they built 3,000 flagpoles. That was their contribution to school improvement. But they then have the audacity to say that there is no detail to our National Plan for School Improvement. Reflecting on the coalition's record, it is clear their lack of care or detail then clouds their ability to see detail now. We had the member for Wentworth, the member for Bowman and the member for Kooyong all claim there is a lack of detail with our plan. I ask them to answer this one point: are you suggesting the New South Wales government signed up to this massive reform on the basis of no detail?
Premier Barry O'Farrell went on TV and basically indicated that Tony Abbott had made clear his view to Barry O'Farrell that the system was not broken, that the agreement should not be entered into, but Barry O'Farrell made clear 'what the cabinet would do in New South Wales'—that is, the cabinet had examined and determined this was the best thing for New South Wales. They are happy and have always have been happy with the current regime because it fuels an 'us versus them' mentality. This reform is far too important to let it slip through our fingers and it represents the collective hopes of schools, parents, teachers, students and all those in the industry.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (18:31): I rise to speak about the Australian Education Bill 2013. As the member for Chifley has rightly said, the bill sets out the apparent aspirational goals of this government. However, they are aspirations. There is evidence in the budget that indicates that these aspirations are unlikely to ever be achieved.
Let me just note for the purpose of the public record what the aspirations are. They are that Australian schooling will provide an excellent education for all students. All of us would agree that that is what is needed, that a focus ought to be on the students and them achieving their fullest potential. Another aspiration identified in the bill is for Australian schooling to be highly equitable. Of course, a third aspiration is for Australia to be placed in the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics, quality and equity recognised in international testing by 2025. All of us would agree that these are highly commendable aspirations.
Unfortunately, this bill stops short of providing any real substance or way forward in any detail for Australian schools and for their students. I am not here today to deny the fact that we want education in Australia to be among the best in the world. We do. We do want a thriving educational system where children are afforded every opportunity to learn, develop and grow to their fullest potential. Having two children, one who has completed school and another who is studying for her HSC, I am more than aware of the importance of a healthy education and the way that it can shape an individual and their future.
This parliament has a responsibility to provide the best framework possible to support and fund all schools in Australia. The bill, however, does nothing to address the real issues currently facing our education system. The future funding of schools is relying on a risky, confusing set of figures underlying the government's approach. The federal budget handed down in May revealed that Labor will be spending $325 million less on schools over the forward estimates than was forecast in the 2012-13 budget. Labor and their figures simply cannot be trusted.
We have calculated there are over $3.1 billion in cuts and redirections from the schools budget being replaced with only $2.8 billion in extra spending over the forward estimates. There is no new money from federal Labor. It is clear that over the forward estimates the only new or additional money for education will come from state and territory governments who agree to Labor's proposal and not the Commonwealth itself. It not be until the years beyond the forward estimates that the new proposed additional money claims will be spent on the National Plan for School Improvement.
This is evidence that Labor's school funding model remains in reality a promise unlikely to ever materialise and is not a solid financial commitment as they claim it to be. It is also important to point out that under the current existing model, no school would actually be worse off. Yes, indexation goes up and down, but it has on average delivered 5.6 per cent over the last decade in additional funding. This 5.6 per cent indexation over the past decade is confirmed in the government's own 2012 mid-year economic statement.
Further adding to the mockery Labor are making of the education system is that they are discontinuing national partnership funding for low socioeconomic schooling which over the four years would have been worth $258.5 million. Reward payments to teachers, cash bonus payments for schools, literacy and numeracy programs are also gone. This all equates to funding to the value of $2.1 billion. Under this government, the funding structure has actually gone backwards. There is simply no detail as to how the new funding system is proposed to operate in this bill as it stands before the parliament. There is almost no detail available about the government's funding model for schools to examine. We are also still waiting for the legislation before the parliament to be updated with new information with additional amendments. What we are seeing are empty promises and billion dollar amounts when the reality is all of these promises have strings attached to them. Labor's rhetoric is not matched with evidence in real dollars.
The key to better schools is in providing the highest quality teachers and empowering them to do their jobs well. High levels of community engagement and more principal autonomy are equally as important. The coalition also have our own set of principles that outline what is important for schooling. These values would underline everything we would do should we be in government and the policies which we believe will best suit our children's future. We have moved these principles in our amendment to the bill, and I would like to highlight them.
First, families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, their values and their beliefs. Second, all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education. Third, student funding needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent criteria distributed according to socioeconomic need. Fourth, students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling. Fifth, as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems. Sixth, schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students. Seventh, every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government. Eighth, schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future. Ninth, parents who wish to make a private contribution toward the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment. The final value is that funding arrangements must be simple so that schools are able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.
I would like to highlight another critical factor to our amendment: We have moved in our amendment that the definitions in this bill should be supplemented to define both a systemic school and a non-systemic school. I am sure other members would agree with me that electorates are made up of both government and non-government schools, each playing a pivotal role in education. The diversity of the non-government school sector is seen across our electorates—Catholic schools, independent schools, Christian schools and Steiner schools. No two schools are the same, and there are many more options available for parents today. These differences need to be recognised in the way non-government schools are funded. For example, under the current funding arrangements, Catholic schools are mostly systemically funded by the Australian government in recognition that they share a common ethos. This means that the funding they attract is provided by the Australian government to the state or territory Catholic education commission for local needs-based distribution between Catholic systemic schools. Other schools are non-systemic, which means that Australian government funding is currently provided to the school directly.
The government must explicitly recognise and define the difference between a systemic and non-systemic school in a way that would later allow funding to flow from the Commonwealth to non-government system authorities if they are systemic or direct to the school if they are not systemic. It must be clear that future funding from the Australian government will flow through to non-government schools or non-government school systems through a direct legislative relationship—which was highlighted, I note, in the Gonski report.
Through the last part of our amendment we are calling on the government to extend the current funding arrangements for a further two years should this be required. Like with any portfolio that affects everyday Australians, they need certainty and stability. Unfortunately, these two attributes are remiss in this government. Parents and schools need funding certainty. Principals want to ensure teaching positions and resources well in advance. Planning for budgets for next year requires certainty as soon as possible.
The truth is that many schools are struggling to raise the extra funds needed. It is no surprise to the coalition that schools are struggling. Because of the introduction of the carbon tax, school utilities prices have gone through the roof. An article published in the Herald Sun last week reported that school power bills have surged as much as 80 per cent in the last year. This has created chaos for schools that are trying to manage their budgets and pay their bills. Schools are becoming increasingly anxious about their future funding arrangements as the current funding agreement for schools is due to expire at the end of this year. State governments have also said they have been left in the dark and are still none the wiser about the full ramifications of the Gonski report. As such, the coalition has given assurances that, should we win government, they could count on the coalition's support to extend the current funding arrangements, including the same quantum of funds, for a further two years so that schools could start to plan with certainty.
As mentioned, this government has a proposed school funding model which is not yet contained in this bill. For this proposed funding model to work, it needs the support of every state and territory and the non-government sector. The government's deadline to achieve a national agreement is looming; 30 June is the deadline. It is very unclear if there will be a national agreement; six out of eight jurisdictions have not agreed. I am sure we have all seen the comments by Premier Newman, who has virtually ruled out signing onto the deal, saying the Prime Minister is making 'misleading statements to the public' and 'does not understand state funding arrangements'.
However, we must not forget that the Gillard government's record on education is one that breaks promises. Labor broke its promises on trades training centres, school laptops, performance pay for teachers and additional funds for improving schools. The bottom line is Labor cannot be trusted when it comes to education funding. Should there be no national agreement then all schools can rest assured that under a federal coalition government they will receive at least the same quantum of Commonwealth funds that they do now indexed each year to meet rising costs. We believe that the current quantum of funds for every school and indexation must be the basic starting point arising from any new funding model. Let me be clear: no school will lose funding.
At the core of education are these factors: excellence in quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, transparency and accountability, and needs-based funding. As well as ensuring that schools receive immediate funding certainty, a coalition government would also take a number of important steps, including: ensuring that any agreement on a common per-student funding benchmark takes into account the fiscal capacity of each state and territory to ensure that those governments who have a history of strong schools investment are not punished while concurrently allowing others to reach a benchmark as and when their circumstances allow, ensuring that schools are not punished for taking their own steps to obtain alternative sources of funding; ensuring that schools do not lose money and that levels of funding are maintained in real terms, working cooperatively with those states seeking to allow their schools greater autonomy and parental engagement, and ensuring that the non-government sector remains and maintains appropriately autonomy from the Commonwealth with regard to the management of their financial affairs.
At the end of the day we need funding and reform that will directly help every student. We can never forget that each school represents a company of students and each student represents a life and a future—a future we can help shape. To deliver hope, reward and opportunity to every schoolchild is what we plan to do.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (18:45): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. Within the Australian psyche Labor owns the education portfolio. That is one of their cornerstones. The great reformist of education was Whitlam with free universities. They have a track record on education. With the bill before the House tonight, which is no more than nine pages and 1,400 words long, oh how the mighty have fallen.
The bill sets out a set of aspirational outcomes with no funding associated with it. The coalition's strength is our capacity to manage the economy. We are all businessmen and we basically cut our teeth on reading balance sheets and making tough decisions to bring businesses back to profitability. This bill is an aspirational statement. In the context of the Gonski environment that surrounds our nation at the moment it would appear there are more unknowns about Gonski than there are knowns to the point where you now have two conflicting parts of the community: those who avidly support Gonski and those who scratch their heads and say, 'How is this going to be paid for?' Those who avidly support Gonski would have you think that those who do not support it do not love their kids—if you do not support Gonski, you are so far right of doing the right thing for tomorrow's kids.
This bill is devoid of any real detail and must be updated with new information. Until then there is very little that can be said about how the proposed funding formula might impact on schools in my electorate. I am so blessed to represent the electorate that I do. In my electorate there are schools from as small as 28 kids with one teacher and sometimes with a couple of teacher aides through to schools with over 1,000 kids. I have spent time with the teachers and teaching staff in those schools and we need to acknowledge at every turn the outstanding work that our educators do with the challenges that face them on a daily basis. It changes, it is systematically different, as you move through the electorate. In some areas they may be dealing with under-resourcing and in the larger schools it is not uncommon for deputy principals to spend the first couple of hours of their day not dealing with student truancy but staff who did not show up. But those are not issues that concern the federal government or the House here at the moment.
There is a belief in the House at the moment that Tony Abbott, the leader of the coalition, the leader of the LNP, is somehow strongarming the states to not sign up to the Gonski education reform in the current bill, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. States have to make a decision on whether they bounce onto it. In my home state of Queensland I regret to say my state colleagues were left with a terribly enormous debt given their state's GDP and there is a long road ahead. The debate up there at the moment is about selling state electricity assets to try to clear some debt, to try to reduce their overall debt level, and get a cheaper interest rate so that their interest bill does not start at $30 million a week. So a lot of the decisions are based on finances.
The federal budget handed down this month reveals that Labor will spend $325 million less on schools over the forward estimates than was forecast in 2012-13. I heard a previous speaker say that that was not true. Overall in education, including higher education and vocational education and training, they will spend $4.7 billion less in the four years to 2016 than was budgeted. My words will go into Hansard, so to assist those on the other side to find where I am getting that $4.7 billion less from, I draw their attention to their budget papers. These were circulated by the Hon. Wayne Swan and Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, so these are not Treasury's figures; these figures belong to the Australian Labor Party.
What we do is get the 2013-14 papers and compare them to 2014. We go to table 7 in both of these books. To make it easy for Hansard, one table 7 is at 6.17 and the other table 7, in the 2013-14 edition, is at 6.20. If you look at those estimates from last year against what was proposed this year, 2012-13, last year they were forecasting that it was going to be $29,572,000,000. What was actually spent? Twenty-eight billion, four hundred and eleven million—a difference of $1.161 billion. The difference in the next year's actual to estimated expenditure was a $187 million shortfall; for 2014-15, a nearly $1.3 billion shortfall; and in the following years, 2015-16, a just on $2 billion shortfall. That makes a total shortfall of $4.7 billion between what they forecast last year and what they forecast this year. Mr Deputy Speaker, do not dare let anyone come into this House and say that these numbers are being made up. These numbers come from the Treasurer's and the finance minister's own workings.
When it comes to the integrity of these guys, you cannot question them because they are honourable men and women; they would not mislead the parliament. But when it comes to the Treasurer's credibility, there was that little throwaway line—it was absolutely hysterical—that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax. More recently, when we were speaking about the write-downs, they were $7.5 billion; a couple of days later the Prime Minister had to come out and say: 'Oh no, Wayne got it wrong. I think the write-downs are going to be $8 or $8.5 billion'. Then Senator Wong had to come out a couple of days after that and say, 'Oh no, all those figures are wrong; the write-downs in revenue are going to be closer to $12 billion'—and that was within a period of three weeks. These forecasts and aspirations—that go out as far as 2025, may I add—are somewhat farcical in an era when Australia is falling behind our competitors on international standards.
So, with the amount of money we have spent on education in recent years, we must pose ourselves an ideological question. Of course, no-one will forget the education revolution that we had—I think it was $6.4 billion that was going to enhance education outcomes and do wonderful things. When you measure us against other nations around the world we went backwards as a result of that investment, purely from an economic benefit point of view. I have seen the benefit of some of those outcomes in the classroom and, to give credit where credit is due, some of the learning aids are substantial and will make a difference into the future. But, rather than debate about aspirational visions, on behalf of the teachers and parents in our electorates when we leave Canberra and go back there, why are we not having the debate as to what has gone wrong with our education system? We all want the same thing. There is a Tally-ho paper of difference, really, between the aspirational vision of the Labor Party and our vision. Families must have the right to choose the school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. All children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education. Student funding needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent criteria and distributed according to socioeconomic needs. We all have the motherhood statements, but why are we debating education without going back and understanding where it was in our communities that education started to not get the desired results?
We have seen such a transformation in this country. My grandfather will sit there and tell you the story of how he used to ride his horse to school and in the middle of winter he used to have to get off with no shoes and stand in a cow patty to keep his feet warm. I would love a dollar for every time Pop gave me that one. Then there was Mother, with her stories of writing on a slate with a chalk. She would say, 'I used to ride my pushbike 230 kilometres to school every morning, so stop whinging and keep walking.' The reality is that over time our school standards have improved and we are a stronger nation for that, but there is such a race for us not to drop the ball on this.
Are we to have a debate about how we are not reaching our outcomes because of the quality of our teachers? I do not think that is so, but let us be brave and bold enough to have that debate; and if we need more money to raise the standards of professionalism there, let us have that debate. Are our kids not reaching the international PISA standards because their household environments have changed? Is it a social issue? My father died when I was in grade 8. When I went to school, I was the odd kid out because I did not have a dad. Now it would appear, when I travel through the electorate, the odd kid out is the kid who still has two parents and the same surname as their parents.
In summary, I do not believe in throwing money after money—and this bill does not speak of money. This particular bill before the House today does not speak of money because, when you go to the explanatory memorandum, at page 4, to try to assess the financial impact statement, the page is blank other than the line: 'There is no financial impact associated with this bill.'
In closing, as the coalition have owned wholeheartedly the management of the economy of this nation for many years, where we have continually paid down Labor's debt, we will continue to own this space. With respect to Labor's ownership of education, with the reforms that have come before the House over many years, and when I read such a document as this bill, can I just say, ashamedly: how the mighty have fallen!
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:00): As parliamentarians we all have pressing issues facing our electorates, which our constituents expect and demand we will address. As the member for a large and diverse electorate, that makes the challenge especially onerous and interesting. Irrespective of which electorates we represent, the top two concerns which affect us all are health and education. They are the two great enablers. Everyone desires to be well and have the best frontline, primary and allied health services and professionals. Likewise, education is a top priority.
In The Weekend Australian there was a section entitled 'Your school'. It was a most interesting read. In fact, the Prime Minister had an op-ed piece, which was headed: 'Let's ensure that no child is left behind'. I quote the Prime Minister:
Every Australian school should be a great school.
No argument with the Prime Minister there. She continues:
That is the goal our teachers and parents seek every day.
The supplement included page upon page of the nation's top 50, least expensive, most expensive, top-performing schools, breaking all the criteria down into the best private, best public primary and secondary schools based on the national average score in the NAPLAN tests for years 7 and 9. But, interestingly, on the second page, in the piece entitled 'Literacy, numeracy foundation stones', Justine Ferrari writes:
Using test data to identify the gaps in students' knowledge and better target teaching to lift students to the next level is still a new skill for many teachers, and some schools have adopted the practice more quickly and successfully than others: schools such as Ballarat Clarendon College in rural Victoria, the only non-metropolitan school in the nation's top 50.
It is very disappointing to think that only one regional school made the nation's top 50. That is why this debate is especially important, because we cannot leave our schools and thereby our teachers and, most importantly, our students behind.
My state of New South Wales has signed up to the Gonski reforms. That has come at considerable criticism of Premier Barry O'Farrell and certainly the education minister, Adrian Piccoli, who is also the state member for Murrumbidgee, an area which is almost entirely in the federal electorate of the Riverina. Mr Piccoli is a good man. He wants what is best for his electorate and he wants what is best for his coalition in New South Wales. And, most importantly, he wants what is best for his schools within the electorate. When you really drill down, he wants what is best for the Murrumbidgee. I have had many and detailed talks with Mr Piccoli about the Australian Education Bill 2012 and about the Gonski reforms.
As the Prime Minister said in this section, he has got the deal of a lifetime. Indeed, New South Wales probably has. Certainly New South Wales was the first state to sign up. The Australian Capital Territory followed suit last week. When I look through the benefits of the school funding reform report, which Mr Piccoli provided me with, with respect to the additional Commonwealth funding for states and territories, I see that New South Wales tops the list, at $3.3 billion. Victoria has $2.6 billion, Queensland has $2.5 billion, South Australia has $390 million, Tasmania has $260 million, Western Australia has $195 million, the same amount goes to the Northern Territory, and the ACT has $65 million. That is on top of higher indexation and the national partnerships rolled into the base.
I asked Mr Piccoli at length why he had signed up and what made New South Wales jump so early. I note that it has caused considerable debate within this chamber. Unfortunately, it has been politicised to the extent where the Prime Minister has praised the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell, and, at the same time, attacked the opposition leader. That is unfortunate. Certainly, this has become quite a wedge issue between the New South Wales coalition, having signed an early deal, and the Abbott-led opposition, which is seeking to win government on 14 September. It has also created a good deal of comment both in metropolitan and regional electorates. In response to my queries as to why he had signed so early, Mr Piccoli demonstrated four points under a heading 'Why is the current funding model broken?' Funding does not follow the students with the highest level of educational need; funding models are inconsistent between government and non-government schools; Commonwealth and state funding models are also inconsistent; and the level of funding is not sufficient to keep our schooling system internationally competitive. And we do want the best for our children. When we have a great school system—a great public school system, in particular—we have great kids.
I had Ashmont Public School come in this morning, and they were great kids—very enthusiastic; very hopeful of the future. And, you know, there is nothing to stop any of those kids, as their teacher pointed out, becoming a parliamentarian; becoming, perhaps, a future member for Riverina—indeed, becoming, perhaps, the Prime Minister. That is the great thing about Australia: anyone, from any school, can become a scientist, can become a top-class sports man or woman, can become the next great inventor, can become the Prime Minister. It is why we are the lucky country.
And this debate is all about providing schools with more money. But at what point do we stop and ask ourselves, 'Is this creeping federalism?' Government schools were always referred to as 'state schools'. That is because the state provided the money for the public schools and the federal government chipped in to help fund private schools. The thought of private schools conjures up images of the rich metropolitan schools with their ovals upon ovals, wonderful gymnasiums and magnificent science laboratories. But private schools in my electorate are not that well off. They are doing it tough, not helped by the everyday costs of living.
Certainly many benefited from the Building the Education Revolution, because they were able to actually manage their own building projects. Their principals and school boards, the state Catholic organisations within each district, were able to utilise those funds to maximum benefit, unlike the public school system where it was a one-size-fits-all approach: if you had so many students you were able to get so big a school hall, based on a formula. And it did not work. So, subsequently, in Plunkett Drive in Wagga Wagga, I have one of the piece-de-resistance school halls, which was built by Mater Dei, a Catholic primary school. Yet at Ungarie, another village in my electorate, they also got a sizeable amount of money but ended up with far less in return. That is because the private schools, the Catholic schools, were able to build their own projects and the public schools were not. Unfortunately, that also provided a class divide.
But, as far as the Gonski model was concerned, it does, as Adrian Piccoli pointed out to me, provide benefits for many of the schools in the Riverina. It provides benefits for those low-fee-paying independent schools, including the Catholic schools—and, as to the Catholic schools, I might add that I mentioned, in my inaugural speech to this House, that I would certainly represent and stick up for their funding from the Commonwealth into the future—the socioeconomic status schools which do it very, very tough; schools with a high Indigenous population; those remote and very remote schools which figure, unfortunately, in the lower end of the results for the NAPLAN tests and in the lower end of the results as far as the resources and the money that they have available to give those children a better education. Those are the schools which have additional needs and which will benefit from this Gonski model which, at the moment, has only one territory and one state signed up for its reform. The Prime Minister is hoping that, by 30 June, she will have all the states and territories signed up. But Queensland has come out to say today, through its premier, Campbell Newman, that they would want a lot better deal on the table. Western Australia is also yet to sign up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and it looks as though Western Australia will not sign up to this deal.
What are the financial benefits for New South Wales? There are four that Mr Piccoli has put forward. There is an additional $3.3 billion from the Commonwealth over six years. National partnership funding from 2011 has been rolled into the base funding, permanently. Commonwealth indexation will be at 4.7 per cent from 2015 onwards instead of around three per cent per annum for schools below the school resource standard. There is additional funding for government, Catholic and independent schools. That has put the New South Wales minister at odds with the shadow education minister. It has put him at odds with the federal coalition. But he was good enough to come to Canberra and detail his ideas on Gonski to the Nationals party room; that was last Tuesday. I know he met, later in the morning, with the shadow education minister, Christopher Pyne. So he has been prepared to come and lay his cards on the table. He has what he thinks is a good deal.
It is creeping federalism. It is going to put the onus on the federal government to fund schools into the future, whereas that requirement was always in the state jurisdiction in the past. But, at the end of the day, what we want from this place and from any parliament in Australia is better qualified students to meet the challenges of an uncertain world, to meet vocational expectations which are becoming more difficult by the day, and certainly to be able to get the sorts of results that we would expect and demand.
I note with interest some of the criticisms of the opposition's lack of faith in the Gonski model. Some of the schoolteachers who have written to me have, unfortunately, had some spelling errors in their emails. You have to actually worry sometimes, as the member who spoke previously, the member for Wright, said about how our kids are being prepared to meet those great expectations and challenges. I know our teachers are very good—those few spelling mistakes aside, and we have all been guilty of that. But I know our teachers are very good—
Ms Hall: You've just put them down.
Mr McCORMACK: Sorry?
Ms Hall: You've just put the teachers and kids down.
Mr McCORMACK: No, I am not putting the teachers down at all.
Ms Hall interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The member for Shortland will cease interjecting.
Mr McCORMACK: I just finished saying that our teachers are very good. They are lacking resources. They are sometimes lacking help. They have to provide everything, from a good education to paying for the resources on their own, to being a counsellor, a father or mother figure—there are so many kids going to school without a breakfast. The demand on schools is very high. If there is anything we can do to help those kids and those teachers to better prepare our students for a challenging world then we ought to be looking at it very seriously.
I commend Mr Piccoli for detailing the Gonski reforms. I know he feels as though he has got a deal that was too good to refuse. At this stage, only two jurisdictions have signed up to it, but it will be interesting in the weeks and months ahead to see how many more sign up to the deal.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (19:15): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. I have lost count of the number of bills from this government that I have spoken on which outline its hopes and dreams for the future, yet again today we are contributing to the debate on the future of Australian education. This bill, in just 1,400 words and nine pages, purports to revolutionise Australian schools. Packed within this document the Prime Minister outlines three goals, which are: for Australian schooling to provide an excellent education for all students; for Australian schooling to be highly equitable; and for Australia to be placed in the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics, with quality and equity recognised by international testing by 2025.
One would be right to ask whether in just 1,400 words all has been revealed. Right? No. This bill is devoid of any detail and must be updated with new information to reflect the actual outcomes. We have seen that again today, with comments by the minister that further amendments will need to be made to introduce the funding model. I thought the funding model formula would have been the key to this whole bill, but it is not in the bill currently before the House.
This is the height of arrogance, with a 'take-it-or-leave-it' attitude. The question is: did the government learn nothing from the debate on the media laws? Without this detail and the proposed further amendments, I am unable to see how the funding formula in particular will have a positive impact on the schools in Forde. There are some very serious pieces of the puzzle missing here. The federal budget handed down last month reveals that the government will be spending $325 million less on schools over the forward estimates than was forecast in the 2012-13 budget. Add to this the money that has been ripped out of higher education and vocational education and training and we see this government will give a grand total of $4.7 billion less in the four years to 2016 than was budgeted for last year.
After making these cuts, the government promised new money to the tune of $9.8 billion for schools, but almost all of this money falls beyond the forward estimates. This means there will not be any of the promised school funding in my electorate or anywhere else around the country until at least 2017. The Prime Minister must be very confident of being around in two elections time to give the money to these schools.
Furthermore, anyone who believes that this promised funding will be delivered in 2017 must be living under a rock because, for the most part, what we have seen from this government is a lot of promises that have been broken. How could you trust the government to deliver on something two elections away when we were promised there would be no carbon tax, no changes to private health insurance rebates and, on more than 500 occasions, that there would be a surplus? We were promised that Labor would be conservative economic managers, and ended up with record debt costing us over $7.8 billion a year in interest alone. Families were promised that they would get an increase to family tax benefit part A. Labor promised 500,000 new jobs within two years, but we have unemployment growth falling to its slowest pace in over 15 years. The Prime Minister promised an automatic tax deduction of 1,000 for workers. We were promised our borders would be protected, yet we see that 35,000 people or more have turned up since the election. We were promised that superannuation would not be touched; instead there has been $8 billion in new Labor super taxes or changes. We were promised 2,650 trades training centres in schools, but only got 241. This is a short list of 10 broken promises from this government, and there are many more. Given that we are looking at results and not just at aspirations or goals, how could anyone believe that our schools would be better off under a Labor government?
Under this government school performance has gone backwards. Historically, Australia's education system has performed relatively well and, according to the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment 2009 results, of the 65 assessed school systems Australia was ranked 9th in reading, 10th in science and 15th in mathematics. These results were significantly above the OECD average on all three measures, and ranked us clearly above nations like the US, the UK, Germany and France. It is sad to say that between 2000 and 2009 Australia was one of only four countries to record a statistically significant decline in student reading performance. Yet this decline occurred despite education spending over that period increasing in real terms by some 44 per cent.
For the last five years, we have heard the constant refrain from this current federal government about the education revolution. But instead of a revolution, we have seen a master class in wasteful spending and appalling mismanagement, all without any tangible impact on what actually matters: improving how and what teachers are teaching so student outcomes can be improved. Suffice to say this has not been the thriving revolution that was promised by the Prime Minister and this government. The plans to improve basic literacy and numeracy have failed despite some $540 million being spent in this area over the past five years. The independent performance audit concluded that the literacy and numeracy program was yet to make a statistically significant improvement to literacy and numeracy in any state.
Sometimes it is instructive to get a reflection from people outside this place. Greg Sheridan, foreign editor for The Australian, wrote on 18 April:
Education more generally demonstrates our almost complete divorce from our Asian neighbours.
He was writing this in the context of the Asian white paper.
We are about to waste a colossal amount of money on this Gonski madness. This money will have no measurable effect on our educational quality.
One thing we certainly won't do is learn from our successful Asian neighbours. I have spent a lot of time in schoolrooms in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Almost without exception, these schoolrooms are physically less well endowed than their Australian counterparts. The class sizes are bigger, the grounds smaller, the buildings tackier. But the instruction is traditional, the teacher is boss, the school day and year are much longer, kids have to learn and remember a huge amount of content.
The result? The outcomes are vastly better than Australia's. This is a lesson official Australia never wants to learn. Asian migrants are now bringing this wisdom to Australia, which is why Asian kids do so disproportionately well in our schools. Our society is well engaged with Asia, but at most policy levels our government hasn't a clue.
The key to better schools is better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more community engagement and more principal autonomy. That is what we will work with the states to deliver.
On the topic of school improvement and more principal autonomy, I would like to share an article from the Weekend Australian regarding two schools in Innisfail that were considered as some of Australia's most disadvantaged schools. The article states that at Innisfail East State School it was not unusual for students to refuse to take their feet off the desks, and that most parents sent their kids to school to get them off the streets rather than to learn. Nowadays the school, along with the neighbouring Goondi State School, is one of a handful of Australia's most disadvantaged schools whose students are scoring in the top half of the nation's results in numeracy and literacy.
I think a good question to ask is: what changed? The principal of Goondi State School has spent two decades overseeing the school where the academic results are high despite hardships faced by its students and families. The reason? The principal set the bar high for his students and teachers and refused to accept excuses. The article said that one of the secrets of the school's success comes from encouraging passionate teachers not to waste a moment of classroom time on needless 'busy work'. They have set schedules that they must adhere to and they have shifted the focus of their teaching back to the basics of literacy and numeracy. The school is now recognised as a benchmark for excellence in this area.
Whilst the coalition does not oppose this bill in its current form, we would like to make a point of highlighting our own set of principles that outline our values for schooling. We believe that families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. All children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education. Student funding needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent criteria distributed according to socioeconomic need. Students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling. As many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems. Schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their communities, families and students. Every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government. Schools and principals must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future. Parents who wish to make a private contribution to the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment. Finally, funding arrangements must be simple, so schools are able to direct funding towards educational outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.
Overall, there are four main areas at the top of our school agenda for school education. I wish to finish on these points. We will relentlessly focus on reforms to improve teacher quality. That is not to say that our teachers are doing a bad job but, as always, all of us can improve or do things differently to get better outcomes. We will work with the states to introduce real principal and school autonomy to the government school system. We will encourage more parental and community engagement, and will continue implementing a robust national curriculum.
One of the choices Australians will have on 14 September is a choice between two different systems to achieve an educational outcome for their children. We would say to the Australian people that the coalition has a positive plan for the Australian school education system. It will not just be full of hot air, or full of promises and aspirations. It will be designed to deliver true, practical and beneficial outcomes for all involved.
Debate adjourned.
Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (19:30): I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. In the late 1990s I was working for a finance company in Townsville and I was a single dad. I had private health insurance for my children. When I remarried and my two daughters were joined by their brother and my son, my teacher wife took 12 months off work to be a stay-at-home mum. We maintained our private health insurance. We were certainly not flush with funds and we certainly did it very tough, yet we made the decision that we wanted choice and certainty in our family's health matters. We needed to ensure that if something happened we would be able to provide. We went without a lot at that time, but we ensured that what was important to us was retained.
The 30 per cent rebate was an essential component of that, although I had to pay a levy for 10 years because I was late getting on. I do not say this to make me sound hard done by, or seeking martyrdom; I am using my personal experience as an example of all the mums and dads out there who want to take responsibility for their own health and that of their families and who are being well and truly belted by this government. Out there, away from the latte-sipping, Vespa-riding, black-skivvy-wearing, inner-city trendies, there lies a nation full of people trying to get ahead and provide for themselves.
This bill seeks to amend the lifetime health cover, or LHC, loading on private health insurance. LHC was introduced by the Howard government as part of reforms that significantly increased private health insurance coverage when it came into effect on 1 July 2000. In fact, this measure helped raise the number of people with private health insurance by 75 per cent, from 6.1 million to more than 10.7 million. Lifetime health cover is a loading on private health insurance payments that is applied at a rate of two per cent for every year that an individual is over 30 when they take out hospital cover. A cap of 70 per cent is applied. It was brought in to get younger people into private health insurance and to maintain their health cover. Currently the government pays the private health insurance rebate on the value of the total premium paid by the policy holder, including the LHC loading component. This new measure, if passed, will take effect in April 2014.
The second component of the bill ceases direct claiming of the private health insurance rebate through the Department of Human Services. This is known as the incentives payment scheme. This will take effect on 1 July 2013. These measures will add $386.3 million to the $2.8 billion taken out of private health by this government from means testing the private health insurance rebate. Put this with the $1.6 billion cut to hospital funding in Labor's MYEFO and you can see just what this government thinks of health.
That this measure was not in the budget last year but was brought in as a knee-jerk reaction to MYEFO tells me everything I need to know about this government. The thing that really gets to me about this is that this is not about health. This is not about equity. This is not about fairness. This is not some altruistic or ideals driven argument. We are debating this bill because the Labor-Greens-Independent government cannot balance its books. This government has lost control of the nation's finances, pure and simple. This government will do anything to anyone to keep power for as long as it can. Just look at from where they have come:
I would like to read into the Hansard part of a letter from the then shadow health minister and our current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who wrote in The Weekend Australian on 15 October 2005:
On Thursday, October 13, the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, asserted in parliament that prior to the last election, I had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and he cited Mark Latham's diaries as proof of this proposition. Yesterday Matt Price reported this claim by the minister as if were a fact (The Sketch 14/10). The claim by the minister is completely untrue and should not have been reported as if it were true. The truth is that I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and, contrary to Mr Latham's diaries, do not support such a claim ... For all Australians who wanted to have private health insurance, the private health insurance rebate would have remained under a Labor Government. I gave an iron-clad guarantee of that during the election. The difference between Tony "rock solid, iron-clad" Abbott and me is that when I make an "iron-clad commitment", I actually intend on keeping it.
Put that with 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' and you get the sincerity of that claim.
What Townsville people are telling me is that they are sick to death of trying to get ahead in this world when, at every turn, this government wants to drag them back down. What is wrong with wanting to do better? What is wrong with wanting to look after yourself and your family? Why is it that, bit by bit, this government sucks that will from hardworking Townsville families? This is another broken promise from this bad government. How can anyone out there take their claims seriously about education and disability, with the bulk of the money coming sometime way out into the future, when they can barely go a week without backflipping and amending and blatantly breaking their collective word.
This government dresses up these things as getting at the 'rich'. There are more than 50,000 people in my electorate alone with private health insurance. There are 3.4 million people in Australia with private health insurance who live on an income of less than $35,000. There are 5.6 million Australians with private health insurance who have household incomes of less than $50,000. Hardly rich!
Let me give this government a lesson in pub economics. If you make it tough for people with substantial disposable income, they will eventually drop off because they have options. They can pay for their dental work when they need it. They can pay for their knee operations when they need them. What will eventually happen is that these measures will increase the burden on those people least able to choose other options. If left untended, this will eventually see the collapse of the system. And where to from there? Straight to the public hospital.
Before I get to the stress on public hospitals, I would like to raise a couple of points about private health insurance in the regions. I live in Townsville, a fantastic city of some 190,000 people. We service the greater north and west of our state where some 580,000 people live and work. We are the major centre; all the centres around us, whilst fiercely proud and independent, are towns of fewer than 20,000 people. Towns like Charters Towers, Ayr and Ingham are all great communities, but they are under stress to keep vital services which form the fabric of their community and offer jobs. If there is a significant drop in the numbers of people taking out private health insurance, then that will put stress on the dentist, the optometrist, the physio and all other allied health professionals in these communities and increase the pressure on the hospital system. If they close, it will not only be the loss of the service but of a couple of jobs, and another trip to Townsville for the services. That, my friends, is how a town dies.
Now, this will not happen overnight and certainly, with Noeline Ikin as the next member for Kennedy it will not happen under her watch. But, if this government continues to ignore the regions of North Queensland and regions like North Queensland, then surely they will stand back, with the Greens and Independents, and let this happen. Again, this budget and this bill are not about health. This is about the budget emergency in which the government finds itself. This is about shifting costs. By forcing people out of private health insurance, they are going to raise the level of activity inside the public system.
So the Townsville Hospital will be asked to provide the services for people who can no longer afford private services. How much extra is going to the public hospital system? Absolutely nothing—not one red cent! So elective surgery lists go up and the wait becomes longer. Forget about seeing a public dentist. The health minister saw that off last year when she ripped over a billion dollars out of the health system with the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. This health minister then pulled $100 million from Queensland Health, after it had been committed. Now she has charge of another attack on health and on choice.
Only a coalition government can live within its means. Only a coalition government can go to this upcoming election with any credibility on health. We will cut the red tape in the sector and we will get more funds to the pointy end—to the patient. Remember them? Remember when we had patients and they were important?
We as a nation and a confederation of states need to look at how we are doing things and how we can get better outcomes. We need to be more focused on allied health and keeping people healthy, not reacting with money for machines that go 'ping'. We need to keep people out of the hospital system. We need better cooperation between public and private hospitals to make better use of the skills and equipment we have in each system. The public system is fantastic at high-end, delicate and technical surgery. It has a great capacity to provide critical services in intensive care and transplant surgery and the like. Townsville's Paediatric Intensive Care Unit is a perfect example of the high-end care which makes the Townsville Hospital such a great facility. And I am proud to say that the Campbell Newman government made that a promise at the last election, then brought it forward and actually introduced it. The previous state Labor government, which made so much of health and lost so much money with the payroll debacle, would not do it.
But there can also be no doubt that the private system can drive our dollar further when it comes to elective surgery and outpatient services such as radiology. If we could get a perfect match of the services and not duplicate them, as happens now, we would go a long way to getting our health system on track.
We must look at ways of getting our students better trained and with more time in clinical areas. Again, Townsville is perfectly placed to offer such a model with James Cook University's School of Medicine and Dentistry and school of allied health. If we could properly integrate the roles of the teachers, mentors and students with a properly funded and allocated regional model, we will end up with a better outcome for all.
We have over $130 billion running through the health system nationally, and the best this government can do to bring some balance is to attack people with private health insurance. Surely, we are better than that? These are the very people who should be supported. Instead, this government walks past and pretends not to notice them.
I oppose this bill and will do everything I can to bring a fair go back to the people of Townsville with private health insurance. I thank the House.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (19:42): Private health insurance is vital to the efficient functioning of Australia's health system. In my electorate of Tangney, 95.7 per cent of voters are covered by private health insurance. Of these, 87.3 per cent have hospital treatment insurance.
Carbon tax, mining tax and now cuts to the private health insurance rebate: simply put, Labor is mounting massive cost-of-living pressures on all Australians. Private health insurance is not just for the rich but rather for those who want to be assured of access to effective health care when they need it most. There are 5.6 million people with private health insurance, who have an annual household income of less than $50,000, and 3.4 million who have an annual household income of less than $35,000.
The changes to Lifetime Health Cover increase premiums for those affected by up to a reported 27.5 per cent on 1 July 2013. This will hit lower income Australians hard. Lower income Australians will be forced to choose if they can afford private health insurance. They may decide to wait and only take out hospital insurance when they need it and have time to prepare. But what if they need it for an emergency and have no time to wait? It makes basic economic sense that the government provides a rebate incentive to promote to all Australians access to private health care as a preventative measure, just in case they need it.
Abolishing the Lifetime Health Cover rebate may appear to save money initially, but it will not save money in the long term. Instead it will cost government. People will be deterred from taking out cover and as a result be more reliant on government assistance for their health care. Removing rebates will place more pressure on public hospitals, which are already struggling with $1.6 billion slashed from hospital funding in Labor's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Public hospital beds have already been closed. In operating theatres, delays to elective surgery are already occurring. We cannot afford for more people to flood the public health system.
How did we get to this day—a bill that makes doing the right thing, acting responsibly and buying private health insurance more expensive? There is only one answer. That is Labor mismanagement and a litany of waste and debt. Because of that debt, we now have a budget emergency. We need to stand up for Australians facing rising costs of living. We do not like the changes to private health insurance. We definitely do not like them. What we have got to do is carefully weigh up the real state of the budget, and then we will be in a position to say when we might be able reverse these changes, but we are not making a commitment on time, because our budgetary position is in crisis because of the mistakes and mismanagement of this government, which everyone is having to pay for. It is well documented by economists and commentators more eminent and learned than me that this bill will hit low-income Australians hardest. They will be disproportionately affected.
So let us all just stop for but five seconds to consider what is really in discussion here, and that is the cost of having a minimum of certainty. Labor is making it more difficult for people to opt in to private health insurance. How can this be in the national interest? To me, this clandestine bill has a face, and her name is Jane. Jane is a constituent of mine. She likes to bake on a Sunday morning, go to church and volunteer as a lollipop lady at the local school. Jane is aged and, as of last month, alone. Jane came to Australia from England with her husband, on a 410 retirement visa. In the years since they have been here, they have been hit hard by the difficult exchange rate and the never-ending cost-of-living increases. But they had about enough to make ends meet. Jane's husband died, and his pension stopped. She now has to find new cover and a new provider. She is not entitled to Medicare, nor does she want it. She is a woman of the war. She is a survivor. But even survivors break down. That is what happened in my office just the other week. Jane fell apart when retelling how she might not be long for this earth as she does not have the money anymore and she cannot afford the health insurance. Having health insurance is a requirement of her visa. Where is the foresight or provision for people like Jane?
This is unquestionably an attack on private health insurance. This is undoubtedly an attack on the aged—an increase to premiums by an average of 10 per cent and in some cases by up to 27 per cent. This Labor government seems completely unwilling and unable to see the huge pressures on many millions of Australians. The pressures of increasing prices and rising unemployment are having a significant deleterious impact. And the government is making things more difficult, not easier. When people do the right thing and show personal initiative and responsibility, they should be rewarded not punished. Where is the incentive? Labor, typically, seek to reward indolence and irresponsibility. They seek to grow the handout culture. Liberals are not about handouts. Australians do not want handouts. They want the government to get their hands off their wallets. And maybe a hand up would be nice. But mainly just get your hands off—hands off our money. Stop spending recklessly. Start planning and start living within our means. That is the only way we can fix this budget emergency.
So it is time to back in government a party that is mature, responsible and will reward the responsible—hope, reward and opportunity. The currency of politics is trust and hope. With Labor, the Australian people have no trust and certainly no hope. How can they, when the Prime Minister serially misleads and has a spending addiction? The government of Australia is undermining faith in the institution of private health insurance. It is structurally undermining the institution, one could speculate, so as to grow the inefficient public system—a system that, by the way, is woefully ill prepared to deal with the expected increase in volume directly due to this bill.
However, there is hope. The coalition gets it, in terms of understanding the very real cost-of-living pressures that ordinary Australians are feeling. These families need to know that the coalition will work tirelessly to fix the Labor mess and end the budget emergency. When the budgetary emergency has ended, the coalition can then roll back the myopic and miserly measures being proposed here in this private health insurance amendment bill. Make no mistake, the rebate is a part of the DNA of the coalition. He who has health has hope. And he who has hope has everything. The coalition will return hope, reward and opportunity if elected on 14 September. Know the day and know the hour when hope rises again—a new morning for all Australians.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (19:52): I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. This bill gives effect to changes to private health insurance that were announced in Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2012-13. Furthermore, a bill removing the rebate from lifetime health cover loadings was introduced in the last sitting week of last year but has not been brought on for debate. This current bill was only introduced in the last sitting week. It is being rushed through the parliament without giving the opposition time to consider it properly through normal processes.
But we know that this is partly to cover, quite obviously, for the government's woeful—that is being polite—and totally inept economic management, which has seen them turn $70 billion in assets and a $20 billion surplus into rolling deficits and debt now pushing through the government's own $300 billion debt ceiling. I hate to repeat myself, but there is nothing else you can do in this situation: due to Labor's economic incompetence, there is now a budget emergency which they are trying to plug with a raid on private insurance. The effect of the current bill is that the government's contribution to an individual's private health insurance rebate would be indexed annually by the lesser of the consumer price index—CPI—or the actual increase in the premium charged by insurers. This will not only force up the cost of private health insurance further but add significantly to the complexity of the product, and it will be administratively difficult for any future government to implement.
The effect of this change will not be felt by individuals or the health system for some time, as it will not commence until April 2014. However, the effect of the government's cut from means-testing changes has yet to be felt, with over $1.2 billion in premium prepayments in June 2012 as people sought to avoid the financial consequences for one financial year or more. The lifetime health cover changes have not passed the parliament and will also have a detrimental effect on coverage if passed.
The cumulative effect of these measures is likely to have a significant impact on private health insurance coverage and increase demand for public hospital services in the years ahead, which will require a response from any future government. It is common sense. It is just like public schooling and private schooling. Private schooling and private health take out the cost to government of looking after education and health. The more you hurt the private sector, the more you force people to depend upon the public, the greater the cost to the taxpayer and the more inefficient the service is. It is just a rolling stone. However, we all know that the Labor Party hate private health and private education and will do anything they can to see the back end of both. Whether it affects the nation's prosperity or the efficiency of the system does not seem to be something that affects them. The lifetime health cover changes have not passed the parliament and, as I said, will also have a detrimental effect on coverage if passed.
This bill adds immense complexity to the private health insurance system. It is the third savings measure to private health insurance introduced by the Labor government and will again force up the costs of premiums. The Prime Minister and other members over many years have ruled out any changes to the private health rebates. In a letter to the Australian Health Insurance Association in November 2007, the member for Griffith said:
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Through means-testing changes and announcements since then, Labor has repeatedly broken its promise on private health insurance.
I spoke in 2012 about the devastating effect the government's change to means-testing would have on my electorate of Calare, and here I am again speaking on the government's continued meddling with private health. We all value our health—those in the bush especially, as we do not have the same access to health care as our city counterparts. We have to look after ourselves because, should we get sick, there are a number of hurdles to overcome even before we get to a hospital. When I was president of a rural representative organisation, New South Wales Farmers, we made the decision that we had to go after health, because what was the point of having a successful farm or a successful situation in regional Australia if your health were not good?
There are so many instances from 2005 right up to 2009 when this government—including when it was in opposition—repeatedly made pledges that it would not do the sort of thing we are faced with today. But the daddy of them all is one that the current Prime Minister made in a letter to the editor of The Weekend Australian on 15 October 2005, where she gave the current Leader of the Opposition a big serve about changing his mind on something. In response to claims by the then minister that she wanted to knock off the private health insurance rebate, she said:
The truth is that I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate …
She is having a go at her previous leader Mr Latham here. She says:
For all Australians who wanted to have private health insurance, the private health insurance rebate would have remained under a Labor government. I gave an iron-clad guarantee of that during the election.
The difference between Tony "rock solid, iron-clad" Abbott and me is that when I make an "iron-clad commitment", I actually intend on keeping it.
Given that we all remember 'no carbon tax under a government I lead', possibly we should not be surprised that once again the 'rock solid, ironclad guarantee' of the current Prime Minister is worthless and that she is doing her level best to destroy private insurance.
Debate interrupted.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Cybersafety
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (20:00): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) cyber-bullying and inadequate cyber-safety poses a significant threat to the welfare and security of all Australians, especially young people; and
(b) this threat will increase with new technology and greater connectivity; and
(2) calls on the Government to enhance cyber-safety education in all Australian schools.
The reasons for my motion are extremely clear. When eight- to 10-year-olds tell me they say they are 42 years old to get onto Facebook and that they have hundreds of online friends that they do not know in person, I know we have a major problem. When a teenager in Perth is stalked using geotagging, I know we have a major problem. When teenagers Carly Ryan and Nona Belomesoff are lured to their deaths by someone they met online, I know we have a major problem. When a family has to leave a community because their daughter was bullied through the distribution of a sexually explicit online video, then I know we have a problem. When children do not know that everything they post online is there forever, I know we have a major problem, particularly when it comes to sexting messages, the sending of sexually explicit images or videos. With mounting numbers of young people committing suicide because of online bullying that can happen 24 hours a day, seven days a week, I know we have a major problem.
My motion before the House is designed to help our young people to manage online risks they are facing every day. I want them to be much more aware and alert than they are now, for them to be confident, smart, safe and responsible online so that they can make the most of their online opportunities. We need a national coordinated response We all know the internet is a fantastic tool, providing amazing opportunities. We can learn in our own homes, achieve degrees and qualifications, shop from home, do our banking, license our vehicles, pay our rates and get most of our business advice. We communicate with our extended families. In fact, many of us are actually reliant on the internet.
Young people are particularly active on the net. It is their world. They are voracious users and rely on technology. It is—and will always be—part of their daily lives. According to Telstra, Australian kids aged between 10 and 17 are online for an average of two hours a day, amongst the highest internet usage rates in the world. In my experience, in many instances this is actually a conservative estimate of the time spent online. However, many young people are completely unaware of both the power of the internet and the risks it entails. For instance, picture yourself walking through an open door where almost anything goes. For our children that is exactly what the internet is—the open door—so we need to provide as much education as possible so that young people can make good decisions online to help protect themselves and their families. Surely this is the most important goal of cybersafety policy. And surely it is obvious that self-protection relies almost entirely on education.
Over the past three years, much of my time has been spent providing cybersafety and cyberbullying sessions for schools—from preschool through to year 12, at times with Australian Federal Police and state police officers. In my experience during this time, the majority of young people and their parents are not aware of online risks, particularly those on social media sites. This is backed up by research that shows that 61 per cent of 16- and 17-year-olds accept friend requests from people they do not know. By year 11, 17 per cent have sent sexting messages and at least seven per cent meet someone in person who they have only met online according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Seven per cent have been victims of cyberstalking and at least 25 per cent of children have been cyberbullied.
From what young people have said to me, they often believe that in some way they are anonymous online: 'because no-one can see me, I am safe!' I have found that view most prevalent in the five- to eight-year-old group. Some also believe, because they think they are anonymous online, that they can send or post the nastiest or most disgusting messages at times! Young people are also not aware that material they post online can stay online forever because the digital footprint of internet access is indelible. It is there forever and it is a permanent digital footprint. They simply do not understand that the internet never forgets.
The impacts of sexting are permanent, the images are on the internet forever impacting on that individual's reputation and opportunities in life. Universities, award donors and employers search the social websites on the internet. In the US, research shows that 70 per cent of recruiters rejected candidates for jobs based on information found on social websites. Young people are also unaware that sexting may be considered a criminal offence. Filming and online sharing of sexual activities of people under the age of 18 can lead to young people being charged by police and ending up on the national sex offenders list.
All Australians need to be better educated about cybersafety and young people are a key part of this in helping to educate their peers and other generations of Australians. This includes their parents, their grandparents but very importantly their younger brothers and sisters who often put themselves and their families at risk with their online postings. I have heard this repeatedly in my school sessions.
Young people also need to be taught the legal risks and the potential liabilities of social networking sites; of photo sharing; the short- and long-term consequences of sexting; and how to use their instincts online to recognise and deal with cyberstalking, online grooming, cyberbullying, their exposure to illegal or inappropriate material including the risk of inappropriate social and health behaviours, of privacy and identity theft and online security. They need to be taught about the issues of defamation, privacy disclosure and confidentiality, legal and ethical issues, intellectual property rights and copyright infringement, criminal laws including harassment and offensive material, computer gaming addictions, accessing of risk-taking sites, and the risk of posting personal identifying material that includes names, addresses and birthdays. These are the issues young people tell me constantly they are exposed to and dealing with online on a daily basis. It is difficult for young people to know exactly what their risks and liabilities are, because there is a fragmentation of cybersafety across agencies and jurisdictions, which is why a national coordinated approach is essential.
There will be even more risk in the future. It changes constantly. That is why at a purely personal level I believe cybersafety should be a core part of the national curriculum. It needs to be taught as part of information technology and, in my view, the only way to achieve uniformity of curriculum quality is to put cybersafety into the national curriculum and, through education, empower these great young people not only to help each other but also to help their families.
Ongoing education of students is a necessity given the rapid and constant changes in technology in apps, and I think we need to keep parents up to date through annual parent information sessions. We need a national commitment to educating our young people. I have spent three years doing cybersafety presentations in schools and I have listened to our great young people. I have come to the conclusion that education is a critical starting point for managing online risk. I will continue my work with my colleagues and members of the community to better include cybersafety in the national curriculum.
While I am here I would like to thank every great young person—and there have been so many of them—who has attended my sessions. I want to thank them because they were honest with me. They gave me great information about exactly what they are dealing with online. I have every confidence that they are a major part of the answer to the online challenges confronting us all. I still have many cybersafety sessions booked for the weeks and months ahead, and I also want to thank the principals, teachers and parents for enabling and attending the sessions to date. I also really want to thank the Australian Federal Police and local state police officers who have come along with me. As I said in the initial sense, we very much need a national, proactive, coordinated approach to give children the education and coping skills to manage what they are doing online.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Turnbull: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak after the honourable member who is equipped with a lectern and ready to go.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (20:09): I thank the member for Wentworth for his deferring to a lectern! I rise to speak on the motion of the member for Forrest that makes many suggestions and claims that I fully support and some that I do retreat from. I am on the same committee—the cybersafety committee—as the member for Forrest, so we have sat through many of the same presentations, and I do commend her for her role in educating her electorate about some of the issues associated with cybersafety. I also, as a member of this side of the chamber, am obviously happy to detail some of the appropriate actions that the Gillard government is taking to eradicate the issues of cybersafety and cybersecurity. I would also like particularly to acknowledge the role of Senator Bilyk, the chair of the committee that the member for Forrest and I are on, and the deputy chair, the member for Mitchell, for their contribution and their raising awareness of this issue amongst young people, amongst seniors and amongst Indigenous Australians—some of the groups that we have particularly targeted in our inquiries over the last few years.
I do not have a crystal ball for where the internet will take us. If I did have a crystal ball, I am not sure if it would be a dark crystal or a light crystal in terms of the opportunities the internet will provide for us in the future. It is a great tool, but it also does provide opportunities for those who are, sadly, ill-disposed to take advantage of people in the community. In Australia—as we are focusing on this motion by the member for Forrest—one of the first comprehensive studies of cyberbullying shows that about 10 per cent of teenagers and children have experienced some form of sustained bullying using technology. The reality is that it is probably more. I would be interested in seeing the data from the member for Forrest on what is going on in her electorate. In our inquiry, when we went to my electorate years back, it seemed to be more.
That is the reality of the internet; people take their school environment home. When the member for Forrest and I were at school, when you went home it was perhaps a safe environment. You at least had your family and support people and you did not take the schoolyard home. Sadly, as we have heard from school students in my electorate and throughout Australia in our inquiry, people take the schoolyard home. It can be a good thing in that you stay connected and you can share information and all the benefits that come with this wonderful tool—the internet—but it also means the tooth and claw of the schoolyard can be taken home to your bed at midnight. I have seen it. I have seen with family members where, when things go bad, you cannot escape from the bullying. When things go bad and people wish to bully you, when I was in school they had to drag you out the back of the bike shed and you could deal with it, but now you can be bullied, harassed, excluded, victimised, targeted and defamed—all of these things the member for Forrest detailed in her speech—in what used to be the safety of your own bedroom. This is the modern reality that we have heard evidence about. This is the reality confronting people as young as 10, 11 or 12—not just adults who might make an informed decision about the bullying they receive but people as young as 10, 11 or 12 and perhaps younger, especially with mobile phones being such that people can access the internet from anywhere.
And this bullying behaviour can have tragic consequences, as touched on by the member for Forrest. The cyberbullying committee reports found an overwhelming number of incidents where victims fell subject to a range of bullying from simple stuff like abusive phone calls, offensive photos or photos the content of which the Australian Federal Police might want to be aware through to stalking. The consequences of that can lead to depression, anxiety and further symptoms. Young people especially have suffered these symptoms when their self-esteem is affected. We have heard evidence in our electorates of cases of suicide and very serious immediate and long-term effects. This happens particularly when someone is a little bit different. The same rules of the schoolyard have existed for 2,000 years but now differences can be exploited, promulgated and distributed much more readily.
Between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011, the Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian's child death register recorded 140 deaths of children and young people due to suicide. Sadly, my wife in her public service job has been connected with most of those deaths. Every one of those deaths is a tragedy. Those 140 deaths are a cold, hard statistic but we can only imagine the tragedy associated with losing one of your children.
The Gillard Labor government takes the safety and security of all Australians, especially our young, seriously. That is why in 2008 the government committed over $120 million towards a range of cybersafety programs to inform and educate young people as part of our cybersafety plan and has continued to invest in cybersafety initiatives. The cybersafety plan includes initiatives such as (1) the expansion of the Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations team that has resulted in a total of 316 offenders having been arrested or summonsed for 840 child sex offence charges since mid-2009; (2) the improved handling of prosecutions; (3) funding for the awareness of cyberbullying so people are prepared; and (4) funding for a national cybersafety education program, which is something that was touched on by the member for Forrest.
The Labor government has also provided an additional $3 million to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation for a national pilot of its eSmart initiative, which I was proud to hear will be rolled out in all Queensland state schools. The Labor government has committed $4 million to develop new online tool kits to help parents, teachers, those training to be teachers, and students deal with school bullying. These tools will be available early in 2013. They include resources for parents, teachers and school support staff, as well as equipping graduate teachers with the knowledge and skills when they first enter the classroom. This is particularly important as there has been a recent surge in older graduates going back to teachers college or university to become teachers. I know that my four-year-old and my eight-year-old have more knowledge in certain areas of the internet than I do as a 47-year-old. That is scary. Certainly they have knowledge of the iPad and things like that. I imagine there are many teachers who have life skills but are not internet savvy.
Cybersecurity is a collective responsibility shared by all who use the internet. It is important, therefore, that businesses and individuals are proactive in taking measures to protect themselves while online. We need to start making progress in providing education for parents, teachers and young people about what they can do to speak up against bullies and the other risks that are on the internet. With a staggering one in six students being bullied weekly and one in five students having experienced some form of cyberbullying, it is clear that we need to take a stronger stand against bullying and encourage more people like Tom Wood, who has previously been a target of cyberbullying. Tom made it through these terrible situations and has now become an activist, speaking out in schools about tackling cyberbullying.
The Gillard Labor government is committed to tackling the threat of cyberbullying and enhancing cybersafety education in all of our schools. One of the Gillard Labor government's key priorities is to provide all Australians, particularly our younger Australians who might be tech savvy but socially unaware, with the information, the confidence and the practical tools to protect themselves online. Some of these methods include: the development of the Stay Smart Online website and social media channels as key sources of information for all Australians on the simple steps they can take to be secure and confident online; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission operated SCAMwatch, which provides information to consumers and small businesses about how to recognise, avoid and report scams; the National Cyber Security Awareness Week held each year in partnership with industry; and the department's interactive self-learning cybersecurity education modules for primary and secondary school students that are free for all Australian students. The education package includes comprehensive resources for teachers and has been embraced by them. (Time expired)
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (20:20): The two honourable members who have just spoken—the member for Moreton and the member for Forrest—have both given very good speeches. The member for Moreton's speech was memorable but the member for Forrest's speech was so outstanding that it should be printed and circulated everywhere because it represents an extraordinarily comprehensive and concise summation of these important public policy issues. I really want to commend my colleague the member for Forrest for her work in this area. She has been a tireless advocate for greater awareness of cybersafety for Australian children. She has conducted so many cybersafety seminars in schools and has been a real example to all of us. I am sitting here next to my colleague the member for Casey. I remember a cybersafety session we had at Mooroolbark College, in the honourable member's electorate, that was inspired by the member for Forrest's work. All of us have become really energised and made aware of this issue by the member for Forrest's hard work.
I beg to differ somewhat from the member for Moreton, our friend on the other side, on this point. I am very optimistic about young people and the internet. I think the digital natives who have grown up with the internet have developed skills of discernment that their parents and grandparents by and large do not have. In my observation they recognise that online there is a vast mass of material and they seem to have developed a very considerable skill for working out what is reliable, what is not reliable and so forth. They are less gullible than their parents who, of course, are used to dealing with sources of information, in printed form or on broadcast television and radio, which were essentially curated. It is the uncurated nature of the internet as an information platform that provides so many challenges.
Nonetheless, there are very real concerns about the extent of bullying online. Most children are subject to bullying in one form or another. You do not need to read Lord of the Flies or be a schoolteacher or parent to know that children can be cruel to each other, and at a very vulnerable time of life. The problem with cyberbullying is that that cruelty is amplified to an enormous audience, and so what was a nasty remark behind the bike shed, as the member for Moreton said, is now broadcast to the whole school and community.
This is where education and awareness is so important. It is important, also, for young people to recognise that the anonymity they think they have online is pretty spurious. There is a famous New Yorker cartoon of one dog sitting at a chair with his paws on the keyboard of a computer, looking down to another dog on the floor, and he says to the dog on the floor: 'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.' Regrettably, increasingly everybody on the internet knows exactly who you are. Privacy on the internet is a very spurious concept. As the member for Forrest said—and this is really one of the key messages that we need to get across to young people—throughout all of human history, the default has been to forget. We have had to make an enormous effort to remember things. We had to paint pictures of mammoths on the walls of caves or remember great ballads, develop a writing system and carve letters in rocks, or paint pictures and take photographs—but generally we forgot things. The reality now, in the digital world, is that it is almost impossible to delete anything, so it is almost impossible to forget. This is the important thing for young people to remember: those embarrassing photographs that they take of themselves or their friends and post on Facebook today could be around for ever. They may take them off their Facebook page but they can be captured, they can be downloaded by someone else, a screenshot can be taken of them and they can be recorded for ever, so sober awareness is of critical importance.
I want to end where I began, by commending the member for Forrest for bringing this motion before the House and supporting her in her effort to make our children more aware of the internet. (Time expired)
Ms HALL (Shortland) (20:25): Cyberbullying is an extremely dangerous and hurtful form of bullying which has no boundaries and takes bullying to a new level. Cyberbullying is particularly harmful because it can reach anyone and a lot of people can take part in it. It is often done in secret, with the bully hiding who they are by creating false profiles or names, or sending anonymous messages. It is difficult to remove, as the previous speaker stated, as it is shared online and can be recorded and saved in many different places. It is hard for a person being bullied to accept if they use technology often. The content—photos, text or videos—can be shared with a lot of people, and this content may also be easy to find by searching on a web browser.
While cyberbullying is similar to face-to-face bullying, it really takes bullying to a new level. It can occur 24/7 and be difficult to escape. It is invasive, impacting on students' social worlds at school and at home, often online. It can have a large audience and is readily shared with groups or posted on public forums, and it is very, very difficult to delete. I am sure every member of this House has come across incidents where students in their electorate have been bullied on the net. The government has recognised the impact and dangers of cyberbullying and that is why the government has invested in the cybersafety plan to help schools and educators protect children from inappropriate material and contacts while online.
If you are a young person and you are being sent threatening emails, being teased or made fun of online, having rumours spread about you online, having unpleasant comments made about you, being sent unwanted messages, having somebody use your screen-name or being deliberately ignored or left out of things, these are the kind of activities that really impact on you. That is why we need to make sure that action is taken in this area.
I would like to recount the story of one young woman, a young girl attending one of the local high schools in my area, who received texts and messages on her Facebook page. These were very threatening. She was threatened with physical harm—not only within her school but, because of the nature of the Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and Hunter area, that threat and those comments that were made about her spread throughout the whole of the Hunter. They were then published on sites down on the Central Coast and this young woman, this young girl attending a local high school, was scared to leave her home. She was terrified—absolutely terrified. This is why cyberbullying is particularly dangerous, as it depersonalises the abuse and the abusers are not held to account. They can say whatever they like on social media and it is really hard to track them down and hold them accountable.
Leigh Sales, on 7.30,detailed the case of a young girl, Zara Nasr, who idolised the pop star Delta Goodrem. She was subjected to the most dreadful abuse on the internet. This is a problem facing our community as a whole. I hope that we all come together on this important issue. Cybersafety is a collective responsibility. It is the responsibility of government, schools and individuals. Parents should monitor very carefully their children's computer usage. Children should not be allowed to sit in their rooms, in front of their computers with no controls whatsoever. Controls on websites are very difficult to enforce because many of the websites are offshore. Many challenges need to be addressed if cyberbullying is to be stamped out and it can only happen if all sides of parliament— (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (20:30): I am very pleased to speak on this motion, moved by the member Forrest, who has been a very strong advocate on the topic of cybersafety for several years. Last year, building on the member for Forrest's work, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, established the Coalition's Online Safety Working Group to consult around the country in developing policies to assist parents, carers and teachers to better protect children and young people from the risks associated with the internet and social media.
As the chair of that group and in working with parliamentarians from every state and territory, we have conducted a very extensive program of consultation around all states and territories. We have spoken with many parents, teachers, industry representatives and children, from age six up to 17. We visited almost 20 schools and held a range of community forums and meetings in every state and territory. Of course, those meetings continue. Just recently I, along with the member for Casey, held cybersafety forums in Upper Yarra and Yarra Junction.
It is very clear that children's online safety is a major concern for parents and teachers. We have heard some very troubling stories about cyberbullying. Let me mention some things I was struck by. A 13-year-old from Caboolture told us that she had over 800 friends on Facebook and admitted she did not know many of them personally. A principal in Perth told us that he had been sorting out Facebook disputes between children as young as six and seven. A mother in Tasmania sought a court order protecting her daughter from online bullies, including an order that they not contact her on Facebook, an order which was refused by the magistrate because, he said, 'I don't know how it works'. There is plenty of evidence that parents and children who run into difficulties with online bullying and other undesirable behaviour do not know where to turn. The major social media outlets are often not as responsive as they ought to be.
So in our discussion paper, which we issued late last year, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for communications, we recommended some key measures which we believed would go a long way towards addressing these issues: establishing a children's e-safety commissioner to take a national leadership role in this area; implementing rapid removal protocols for large social media outlets, for material that is targeted at and likely to cause harm to an Australian child through a co-operative regulatory scheme; assisting parents and carers to make informed decisions about devices such as smartphones and tablets, by establishing recognised branding, indicating their suitability for younger children and teenagers; providing greater support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the National Safe Schools Framework, and assisting with online safety resources for schools; and undertaking a national public education campaign to highlight online safety issues.
A key proposal in the discussion paper is for greater support for schools in their work to assist the children in their care to be safe online. This would involve providing greater support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the existing National Safe Schools Framework.
After several years of no action from this government with regard to protecting children online, it was good to see an announcement from the current government in January this year. The coalition welcomed the fact that that announcement followed the lead that the coalition had established in key areas, announcing an education module for school children and voluntary protocols, involving some social media outlets. While these arrangements are welcome, it is clear that this announcement by government does not go far enough.
The coalition has made it clear that we expect the major social media outlets to step up and show a greater degree of social responsibility than they have shown to date in working with government and regulatory agencies to address the problem of providing rapid responses to cyberbullying when that is experienced by children.
The coalition expects that our discussion paper 'Enhancing Online Safety for Children' will stimulate discussion. Indeed, we have received an extensive range of submissions, which we are working through. Based upon our discussion paper and those submissions we will be bringing forward a policy at the next election. We expect that, in response to that, social media outlets and other internet companies will be better placed to demonstrate their commitment to corporate social responsibility in protecting children from harm. We also want to see enhanced cybersafety education through providing greater support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the National Safe Schools Framework. We also want to see a national public education campaign to highlight online safety issues. I commend this motion and congratulate the member for Forrest on her significant work in this area.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (20:35): I am very pleased to speak in this debate on cybersafety and I thank the member for Forrest for bringing this very important issue before the House. As a parent I am very interested in this area and I know that people other than parents of course are also very interested in this area and rightly so. This motion raises a number of very important issues about the role of regulation in our society. When we talk about emerging technologies, a debate will always happen on how best to regulate where regulation should occur. While we have that debate, I think two things should remain paramount. Firstly, the safety of children is paramount—we call it cybersafety and we need to focus on the issue of safety—and, secondly, harm minimisation generally as it applies to users of technology.
I think it is very important to have in that process, as previous speakers have said, education in schools targeted specifically at young people. But I also think a very important role is to be played by parents. I think that is one area where education could focus in particular on things such as ensuring that parents speak to children about it. Even 30 years ago, or a couple of decades ago, there were questions in Dolly magazine—I am showing my age—like, 'Have your parents talked to you about sex education?' Well, today we know there are so many different ways that that information can be gleaned, but I think the real question today is: how much do young people know about the dangers of getting involved in some of these practices that, unfortunately, a lot of people consider to be normal?
As previous speakers have said, and it is very true: content does not just disappear. It probably does not amaze a lot of people here, who have been engaged in this debate, but you would be amazed to know, in society, how many young people in particular think that, because they have deleted a post, text or picture from their device, that content is gone forever. But of course it is not.
The other thing to remember—and I think the member for Shortland highlighted this—is that this is a practice and a phenomenon that has no boundaries. It does not matter what you post in the digital age; anyone will be able to access it. That brings up particularly important issues for people who live in small towns. I am sure the member for Forrest will have seen it, but last week, on the 7.30 program, there was a story with a focus on sexting—in particular, on issues that are happening in Victoria and on an inquiry that has just finished in Victoria—and there was a focus on some things that were happening to some girls in a small Victorian town. I will quote from the transcript:
One in five young women have posted images of themselves nude or semi-nude online. Nearly half the girls have been asked to.
In this story there was a focus on a small Victorian country town where Facebook forums, it said:
… have trashed the reputations of local girls.
In small towns, where news spreads fast, and even faster in digital format, the lives of these young people have been, in some cases, I think, irreparably damaged, when you look at some of the evidence.
One of the people who were interviewed for this program, named Fiona Coe, talked about these girls and said:
They had the photos of them, they had their names underneath and it said, you know, phrases like "Your local slut" such and such a name with their photo or, "Look, she wants this." … so it was quite putdown and bullying, really.
I think it is very disturbing that we have these things going on.
I note that there was, as I said, the inquiry specifically into sexting by the Victorian Law Reform Committee, which looked at the cybersafety committee's report that was done by this parliament. But I also think it is instructive to look at a couple of other things that were mentioned, in terms of Australian statistics. The Australian Council for Educational Research cited a Victorian study on the prevalence of sexting and it said that a 2009 survey of 4,770 students in years 5 to 11, from 39 independent schools in Victoria, found that overall 7.3 per cent of girls had been asked to send a nude picture of themselves, and this increased with age. I think it is very important, as the member for Forrest rightly states, that we have education in place. We do need consistency in this area, and we do need effective education that is targeted towards these very practices that we are seeking to make sure are stamped out as much as possible.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (20:40): I rise with great pleasure to support the motion of the member for Forrest in relation to cyberbullying and cybersafety posing a threat, especially to young people. I want to note the contribution of the member for Forrest in this space in this parliament. She has done an enormous amount of work on the committee and the parliament's Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety. Indeed, this motion represents yet another step forward in acknowledging that this House calls for greater education and enhancing cybersafety education in all Australian schools. I want to rise to support that in particular, because, after an inquiry into cybersafety and young people, and with all of the experience I have had in my role as the deputy chair of the cybersafety committee, I am aware that education is put forward as the best solution to this challenge facing young people today.
We have heard from members of this House about the challenges facing young people in a rapidly changing world and, indeed, it is telling when all groups—the internet industry, all of the different businesses associated with providing the internet in Australia, parent groups and academics—say that the best thing they can do is encourage, educate and equip young people with things that they need to prevent these things from happening in the first place. Perhaps the most telling thing that was said in evidence in the time that I have been on this committee was, when we were discussing internet filtering—a pet hate of mine—a witness said that we need to teach these young people to use the filters in their heads. I think that was perhaps the most telling crystallisation of the concept.
We know that most Australian children are immersed in the internet. We know that the attitude of social media and social networking is evolving in this country. We know that Facebook has opened an office in Australia, which is a great triumph for Australia and Australians, and I commend the work of the committee and the member for Forrest in forcing this. And we have rejected the attitude of Mr Mozelle Thompson from Facebook who said, under questioning from me about the issue of children under the age of 13 using the Facebook site, when challenged on the fact that there were tens of thousands of young people under the age of 13 using Facebook:
I accept that there are people who lie, and sometimes those are younger people who maybe do not belong on the site. Facebook has mechanisms to try to detect them, but it is not perfect.
This was the response of Facebook—and, of course, every kid in my street under the age of 13 is on Facebook. That attitude is a thing of the past. Indeed, I call again for the internet industry to understand that self-regulation is better than failing repeatedly in this space and having governments—bad governments and good governments—legislate over the top of them. There is a great role for self-regulation. There is an even greater role for cybersafety education in all Australian schools.
I was privileged to launch, with Kids Helpline and Optus, a resource that went into all 10,000 of Australia's schools, the 'Make cyberspace a better place' campaign. This initiative of Kids Helpline and Optus saw this resource—which was an education pack containing information on cyberbullying, sexting and the safe use of technology—go into 10,000 primary and secondary schools. It was piloted at Oakhill College in my electorate, and I want to re-commend the kids there for the work that they did in improving the quality of those lessons and ensuring that they were young-people relevant.
But, as to the breaking up of these categories into the right age groups of primary schools and high schools, where to fit in sexting, where to fit in cyberbullying and where to fit in the safe use of technology is an evolving discussion. But it is a critical discussion. It is something which I completely support as the best mechanism available to our society to help protect young people from the dangers they face online. It is certainly better than passing a law through this place. It is certainly better than seeking to impose unnecessary red tape and other institutions like filtering to pretend to parents and to communities that the government can filter out negative or harmful consequences of the online space—it cannot.
That is why I am very pleased to rise in support of the motion of the member for Forrest. She has put forward something that is common sense and that ought to be common sense; that is, when we move into this era where online digital use is prevalent among all our young people, it is absolutely vital that we ensure this is part of our education system, that we equip our children with the tools they need to make their own decisions and protect themselves online as the best way forward.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (20:45): The member for Forrest has probably been overwhelmed with compliments tonight, but it is a reflection on both sides of the House recognising and commending the member's efforts in this space. I had the opportunity to listen to the member for Forrest's contribution from my office before coming to the floor and, seeing all the work that she has done, I know this is not just a motion in word but in deed as well. I join with others in commending the member for Forrest in bringing this to the House.
As is evident from the contributions this evening, we all take the security of Australians seriously, particularly as it impacts on younger Australians. I was fortunate to serve for a brief period with the member for Forrest on the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety when it handed down its interim report in June 2011, titled High-wire act: cyber-safety and the young. It had about 32 recommendations to it.
Cybersafety remains an important area of personal protection for all Australians, and educating people is very important, as has been reflected on a number of times tonight. There is no doubt schools and early childhood education have a role to play in shaping protective behaviours long before cyberbullying becomes a problem. The government has made enormous commitments in the area of cybersafety across portfolios. As has been mentioned by my colleague the member for Moreton, there has been a $3 million grant to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, and a national pilot of its eSmart cybersafety initiative has now been delivered to approximately 1,600 schools.
Parents are critical. They will form the front line in helping to keep young people safe online and in keeping lines of communication open, particularly on sensitive issues. Parents will be the key group in this area of education. There are positive signs worth reflecting on, including a 2010 parents survey commissioned by the government which found that one in two parents, or 46 per cent, feel that they are 'well informed' about cybersafety issues. What was interesting in the survey was that it found the majority of parents—84 per cent—had spoken to their children about the risks of being online, and 80 per cent had implemented preventative measures to minimise those risks. That is an encouraging start, but the findings demonstrate the need for further work.
The government has committed a total of $125.8 million on its cybersafety plans to combat online risks to children and help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material. Under our plan the government has established a range of advisory groups to ensure world's best practice when it comes to protecting children online, including a Consultative Working Group on cybersafety and a teachers and parents advisory group on cybersafety.
I make special mention of the Youth Advisory Group on cybersafety, or YAG, as some like to call it, which provides students from all over the country a direct voice to the government on cybersafety issues. Nearly 3,000 students from 400 schools will participate in the 2013 program via online consultations and a cybersafety summit, including students from the electorate of Chifley. I am proud to say that students from Evans High School participated in the YAG, and I commend them for their efforts.
Additionally, and quite separate to this, I pay tribute to the Youth Advisory Group of Mount Druitt's headspace, which recently walked me through this issue and talked through some of the pressures that young people are facing from online bullying and—as has been mentioned tonight—the ever-present danger there. It is not just a matter of being at school; this is something that goes home and is almost like a 24/7 phenomenon. This is a reflection on the fact that social media has become an integral dimension of so many young people's lives and where they are most vulnerable. No longer are computers the sole domain of social media; this transfers onto platforms through mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. That is why the government's Cybersafety Button has become an important tool, ensuring young people have 24/7 access to cybersafety resources and advice and can report inappropriate behaviour, including to the AFP. Since it was launched in 2010 it has been made available on nearly one million computers and mobile devices.
This demonstrates, too, that social networks need to be mindful of the danger and ever-vigilant. As much as there has been negative comments about social media sites like Facebook, having met last year with Facebook's Product Manager for Site Integrity and Trust Engineering, Jake Brill, it seems there are some encouraging signs. But we still have a lot of work to do and we need to keep the focus on this. Having a parliament debate is one way we can do this. Congratulations.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Assyrian Population of Iraq
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (20:50): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Assyrian population of Iraq continues to suffer persecution 10 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein; and
(b) since 2003, 600,000 Christian Assyrians have left Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and
(2) being aware of the Assyrian aspirations for the establishment of an autonomous province, calls on the Government of Iraq to take all appropriate steps to protect the rights of minorities, including the Assyrian Christian people, and to support the continuation of their linguistic, cultural and religious traditions.
In 2005 I moved a motion in this House highlighting the plight of the Assyrian people of Iraq. It called on the Australian government to make representations to the then newly elected transitional government of Iraq to ensure that the Assyrian people, Chaldean people, Syriac people and Mandaean people of Iraq would be constitutionally recognised and guaranteed the right to freely exercise their customs, would be given the same protection by law enforcement and international security forces as other ethnic groups, and would be entitled to proper representation and participation in all levels of government. This was a motion moved those years ago which passed the House.
It pains me to say that all these years later the situation for the Assyrian people has worsened, not improved. Assyrians are tragically used to oppression. During the years of Saddam Hussein they are subject to the policies of the Ba'ath Party. They were victims, along with other groups, of the al-Anfal campaign of persecution in the late 1980s which saw many Assyrian villages in the north of Iraq destroyed and thousands of civilians killed. The Assyrian people and the Chaldean people celebrated the fall of Saddam Hussein in the hope that democracy would bring freedom—and I went to some of those celebrations here in Australia—but this has not been the case. The hopes and dreams of the Assyrian people have been dashed as the situation has worsened in Iraq.
Assyrians and Chaldeans are easy targets. As Christians they suffer violence as proxies. They are targeted as representatives for anger directed at the United States, Australia and the West. There have been many instances of this since 2003. Churches have been destroyed and Assyrian people have suffered. On Epiphany Day, 6 January 2008, five Assyrian churches were attacked in a coordinated assault and destroyed by car bombs. The deadliest attack against Assyrians since the war began was in 2010, in a Baghdad church attack which left at least 58 worshippers dead.
These are just a few instances of the persecution and violence that Assyrian and Chaldean people live under in Iraq. This has led to an exodus from Iraq as Assyrian people and Chaldean people have fled the violence and persecution. It is estimated that just 400,000 Assyrians remain in Iraq, many of them older Assyrians who have exhausted every last penny of their savings to fund the escape of their children. These are the indigenous people of Iraq. These are innocent people who have been driven from their country. They have fled to Jordan, to Lebanon, to Turkey and to Syria. Many of those who have fled to Syria over the last 10 years have since been forced to leave this haven where they were looking for at least some form of protection. These people were the primary target of the government's increase in the refugee component for the Middle East of 1,000 people affected by the Syrian crisis. I am very pleased to say that since I left the immigration portfolio I have kept in regular contact with progress in settling Assyrian, Chaldean and Mandaean people who have been affected by the Mandaean crisis. I have been very pleased to receive the updates on large numbers of people who have been resettled and given the chance of a new life in Australia.
This is the problem, but we must have a view to the solution. Having looked at this issue over many years and having worked with the Assyrian and Chaldean communities, having done much in relation to working with the Australian government and the successive foreign ministers—Smith, Rudd and Carr—on this issue, I have reached the view that the only sustainable solution is an autonomous region within Iraq, administered by Chaldeans and Assyrians.
In the north-west of Iraq lies the Nineveh plains, a 4,000 square kilometre area that is believed to have been and is the traditional heartland of the Assyrian people. The majority of its population is Christian, including many displaced Assyrians who came to the Nineveh plains to seek refuge. There have been calls for the establishment of an autonomous region in the Nineveh plains for the Assyrian people, and I support this call. This would help in establishing their own police and defence forces, such as other groups have been able to do. In 2010, 4,300 Christians fled the attacks in nearby Mosul and relocated to the Nineveh plains. They were joined in following years by Assyrians who, as I said, have left Syria because of the conflict there.
The idea of Assyrian autonomy is not new. It is not actually opposed, by all reports, by the current Iraqi government. President Jalal Talabani has said:
… there are areas where the Christians are a majority in Iraq, and we do not oppose the formation of a province …
He went on to say:
We believe that attention should be focused on healing the wounded Christians and to provide humanitarian aid … we do not want to displace a dear part of the Iraqi population, especially since the Christians are the indigenous people of Iraq, who lived in Iraq since the advent of Christianity, played a role in civilization and culture of Iraq.
This is also supported by other groups in Iraq.
While support has been expressed for this idea, action has not been forthcoming. I believe the time for talk has passed and the time for action has arrived. As I have said in this House in relation to other matters, there is an obligation on all governments to ensure the protection of all its citizens, regardless of their race or religion. That is an obligation which of course also applies in Iraq. I would foresee the situation—and it may at this point seem to be a dream or to be ambitious—where some of those Assyrians and Chaldeans could feel safe in returning to Iraq, that exodus could be reversed and the people who are living in very difficult situations in Syria, in Jordan, in Lebanon and in Turkey could return to their homeland, the nation of which they are indigenous people. If this autonomous region were developed and implemented it would not be an ambitious dream but could be the reality.
Around the world many Assyrians are working towards this, advocating for this. Many Assyrians are here in Australia. I recognise the Assyrian Universal Alliance and representatives present in the gallery tonight, Hermiz Shahen and David David, being the leaders of the delegation and being particularly forthright in representing the views of their people. The clergy, the various bishops, are represented here in Australia and around the world.
The situation facing Christian minorities in the Middle East is a crisis. It is a crisis which receives nowhere near enough attention in what is a busy and jam-packed national and international agenda. But it is a crisis which is real and which has seen good people and innocent people die, good people and innocent families leaving their homeland and facing uncertainty and desperate situations. I think it is incumbent on the nations around the world, those of us who were involved in the coalition of the willing and others, to face this issue square on and to work cooperatively with the government of Iraq and remind them of this.
This has been an issue that the Australian government has been active on. I know Foreign Minister Carr raised the issue with then Secretary of State Clinton and current Secretary of State Kerry and with Foreign Secretary Hague. He has done that in relation to the situation of Christians in the Middle East generally, the Syrian and Chaldean situations, the situation of the Copts of Egypt and others. So he, and we, should: this is an appropriate matter for the Australian parliament to be considering tonight.
We have a strong and vibrant Assyrian population, but an Assyrian population which has many sleepless nights, worried about the fate of their brothers and sisters, their cousins and, in many instances, their elderly parents who do not feel able to make the journey to safety but who live in constant fear of persecution and violence. They should live in that fear for no longer. If the measures that are proposed by the Assyrian community are adopted then that will be a reality. It is something that this House, I think, is right to consider this evening.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (21:01): I rise to second the motion moved by the member for McMahon and to speak in support of it. I note that this is the second motion in the House today on Assyrian issues, following the motion moved earlier by the member for Berowra. I recognise in the gallery tonight Hermiz Shahen and David David of the Assyrian Universal Alliance and their delegation.
There are two parts to this motion. The first part, clause 1(a), states that this House notes:
(a) the Assyrian population of Iraq continues to suffer persecution 10 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein was the most brutal of dictators. He led his people into senseless wars—the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait—that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. He used chemical weapons on his own people. I recall a question that was asked at the time of the Gulf War: was Iraq the way it was because of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq? History now answers that question, and it seems there is truth in both, for Saddam and his Ba'athist regime did at least keep the genie of Islamic militancy bottled up for a time.
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Assyrians in Iraq have been the targets of numerous fatal attacks by Islamic terrorist groups. I will give a few examples. In August 2000 an attack by Islamists on Iraqi Christian churches killed 11 people. In 2006 an Orthodox priest, Boulos Iskander, was snatched off the streets of Mosul by a group that demanded a ransom. Even though the ransom was paid he was beheaded; worse still, when his body was found the priest's arms and legs had also been cut off. In 2008 the Assyrian clergymen Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Mosul died after being abducted. In January 2008 bombs exploded outside nine churches. This followed a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq, stating that Iraq's indigenous Christians were a 'legitimate target'. And on 31 October 2010 militants of al-Qaeda in Iraq laid bloody siege to 'Our Lady of Deliverance' Church in Baghdad during Sunday evening mass, killing 58 people, including two priests, and wounding 78 more. As detailed in The New York Times on 1 October 2010:
Blood still smeared the walls of Our Lady of Salvation Church on Monday. Scraps of flesh remain between the pews. It was the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since the war began here in 2003.
Survivors said one of the priests, Father Sahib:
… was pushed to the ground as he grasped a crucifix and pleaded with the gunmen to spare the worshippers.
He was then killed, his body riddled with bullets.
The motivation behind these attacks on Iraqi Christians is religious. It is aimed at driving the minority out of Iraq. What is happening today in Iraq is ethnic cleansing. Assyrians are being killed in a deliberate and strategic way. This brings me to clause 1(b) of this motion which notes the fall in the number of Christians in Iraq since 2003. At that time there were nearly 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, but due to deaths and forced emigration the figure has fallen to around 500,000.
The new Iraq, from the time of its liberation from the Ba'athist regime, has witnessed a huge exodus of Christians. In the decade since the invasion by the coalition of the willing, more than half of Iraq's Christians have fled to refugee camps in Syria or Jordan, reducing a pre-war population of more than a million to 500,000 or maybe fewer, maybe only 400,000, most of whom survive today in Iraqi Kurdistan. Those remaining are experiencing one of the world's most pressing humanitarian crises, with systematic persecution largely unreported in the mainstream media. Today, on their ancestral soil, all that is left of the world's oldest Christian nation is a small and desperate minority. A culture that survived centuries of hardship now stands on the verge of disappearing completely. If nothing is done, the Christian community in Iraq, after more than 2,000 years as a significant presence, may disappear altogether.
The second clause of this motion sets up what the international community must do to ensure this never happens. The motion calls for the government of Iraq to establish an autonomous province in the Nineveh plains region to provide a haven for Assyrians and all other historically Christian people, for the continuation of their linguistic, cultural and religious traditions.
In considering this motion, it is important to understand that Iraq is a nation artificially created out of the ruins of the old Ottoman Empire. It is composed of multiple ethnicities and religious sects. Iraq's modern borders were mostly demarcated in 1920, not by the Iraqi people but by the League of Nations when the Ottoman Empire was divided. It placed Iraq under the authority of the United Kingdom as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. A monarchy was established in 1921, and the Kingdom of Iraq gained independence from Britain in 1932.
In 1958 the monarchy was overthrown and the Republic of Iraq was created. It has been controlled by the Ba'ath Party from 1968 until 2003 when the Ba'ath Party was removed from power after an invasion by coalition forces. The coalition presence in Iraq ended in 2011.
Iraq has never known a functioning democracy. Its different groups were only held together by Saddam's use of political terror, and this worked to keep Iraq together until the invasion of 2003. So we cannot look at Iraq through rose-coloured Western glasses, assuming that multiculturalism will just work out fine. Just look at the overall chaos in Iraq today: more than 1,000 people were killed in violence in Iraq in May this year, making it the deadliest month since the sectarian slaughter of 2006-07. And on Saturday the United Nations reported that the fear is raised of a return to civil war. Today we read reports of five men being arrested in Iraq after three laboratories designed to produce sarin and mustard gas were uncovered. Also recovered were model helicopters, flown by remote control, which were designed to distribute the chemical agents. It seems clear that the terror plot of al-Qaeda planned to strike targets not only within Iraq but also in Europe and the US, using chemical weapons and model aircraft.
Amongst this chaos the new authorities in Baghdad are simply unable to protect their Christian minority. So the only way forward is what is known as the 'Nineveh plains solution': the establishment of an autonomous province in the Nineveh plains region at the centre of the ancestral Assyrian homeland, to provide a safe haven for Assyrian and all other historically Christian people. In those plains, where the Bible places the Garden of Eden, there already exists a compact Christian population. For the Assyrian Christian, including the Chaldean-Syriac community, the only effective solution is for the Assyrian people to remain in Iraq in the creation of a new province in the Nineveh plains—the heart of the ancestral Assyrian homeland.
Local control would allow these indigenous people to gain a stable foothold within their own country, where they could sustain, develop and grow a base population in a secure and stable environment. Christian autonomy in the region would protect Assyrian communities and also work as a buffer zone between warring sides. This solution is also consistent with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We now have a nonpermanent seat on the United Nations Security Council—one that came at great expense to the Australian taxpayer, and we only hold it for two short years. This should not just be a trophy that sits on our mantelpiece gathering dust. We must use our voice to promote freedom, democracy, human rights and religious liberty, and to raise the significant human rights concerns of the Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi government.
There is no other alternative other than to see the ongoing Christian Assyrian genocide—the second within the last 100 years. We have a moral obligation to see that this cultural extinction will not happen.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (21:11): I would like to thank the member for McMahon for bringing this important motion to the House tonight. Could I also acknowledge his great contribution in his ministerial portfolio in increasing Australia's refugee intake to 20,000 and, specifically in identifying an additional thousand positions to be focused on refugees from the Middle East, with this particular situation in mind. So, Chris, thank you for what you have done and what you have done for the community.
His electorate in McMahon, like my electorate of Fowler, has a high proportion of refugees from the Middle East, and particularly from Iraq. These refugees represent a small proportion, however, of the million Christians who have fled Iraq since the invasion of 2003. A much larger proportion of individuals who were lucky enough to escape death now find themselves in refugee camps in Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon, and they certainly lack basic human rights and living conditions. Many others escaped to other regions of northern Iraq, where their futures are still uncertain but they are somewhat safer from harassment and persecution.
I join the member for McMahon in calling for the government of Iraq to establish an autonomous province in the Nineveh plains of northern Iraq, where Assyrian and other Christian minorities can live in peace and free of threat to their lives, their livelihoods, their cultural traditions and, most importantly, their religion.
The Nineveh plains hold a high level of importance for the Assyrian people, and certainly for those of the Assyrian Church of the East—the Syriacs and Chaldeans. It is a location which is very much at the heartland of Assyrian ancestry, and you will find many of the Assyrian ruins in that vicinity. It is also a province where the majority of the population is drawn from a group of minorities, around half of them being Assyrians.
Unfortunately, life is difficult for the citizens in that region particularly given the lack of infrastructure to aid the displaced population. There is certainly a grave lack of funding going into health, education, roads and other things that make this a viable region, ensuring the survival and prosperity of the population there. There is also growing struggle for political influence in the area between the various Assyrian entities, including the Assyrian Democratic Movement and sections of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
The situation that Christians face in Iraq, including northern Iraq, and in the various refugee camps in neighbouring countries, is very alarming to all responsible members of the international community. The internally displaced people and refugees nevertheless are fortunate to at least have a dedicated group of representatives around the world who are advocating on their behalf and making sure that the global community is well aware of their struggle. We have with us tonight representatives from the Assyrian Universal Alliance, an organisation which has a very strong presence in my local community and across Australia and New Zealand. I have met a number of times with their representatives Hermiz Shahen, the organisation's regional secretary, and David David, as well as with other representatives of the community, including Ninos Aaron, James Jacob, Joseph Joseph, Redmon Zomaya and Sankhairo Zomaya. I would very much like to thank the Assyrian Universal Alliance for the work that they do. Only recently, I had the opportunity to present them with a community service award for the work that they do looking after the wellbeing and settlement needs of the local Assyrian community.
An individual who has provided me with significant insight into the issues facing the Assyrian population in Iraq is His Beatitude Mar Meelis Zaia, the Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and Lebanon. He has been the leader of the Assyrian Church of the East in the Oceania region for the last 25 years. During our discussions, we shared common views on the importance of education among displaced people, particularly those in northern Iraq and particularly the younger generations.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (21:16): I rise to speak in support of the motion put by the member for McMahon and commend the member for bringing the motion to this House. I note that a motion of very similar intent was brought before the Federation Chamber today by the member for Berowra, the Father of the House. That was an equally worthy measure that should be considered by this place.
It is important we signal our solidarity to those who are forced to endure great suffering on account of their race and religion. It is important we extend our support to those who have been able to escape to build a new life here in Australia, by proper methods, but are never quite free from the horror as they pray daily for friends and family left behind. It is even more important we make known to their oppressors that Australia will not sit silently and tolerate the abuse of their fundamental human rights.
On 31 October 2010, 58 lives were taken in an attack on a Baghdad cathedral. This act of violent extremism was sadly not the first or last against the Christian Assyrian people. On 6 January 2008, Epiphany Day, five Assyrian churches, one Armenian church and monasteries in Baghdad and Mosul were attacked with coordinated car bombs. In 2011, there were eight attacks on churches, with more than 35 people wounded, both civilians and security forces.
Christian Assyrians continue to suffer severe and barbaric persecution in Iraq and also in Syria. They are actively discriminated against. Their land has been illegally occupied. Kidnapping for ransom is an all-too-common occurrence. Harassment is commonplace. Since 2003, 600,000 Christian Assyrians have fled their homes in Iraq. Thousands have come here to Australia and to Sydney to start a new life. But I know their brothers and sisters who remained behind are foremost in their thoughts.
There are an estimated three million Assyrians around the world, one million of them living in Iraq and 700,000 in Syria. Under Saddam Hussein, they faced great discrimination, but, though that regime of terror has come to an end, 10 years on their plight still has not. In Iraq, minorities still do not have adequate protection from the state. We call on the Iraqi government to change that.
This morning, the member for Berowra said we need to be generous, as we have been in the past, in assisting those refugees who are forced to flee. He was absolutely right, and that is what our humanitarian and refugee program is for. Australia runs—and did so even before the change in the level of intake—the most generous humanitarian and refugee resettlement program per capita in the world. We should never forget that these places are extremely precious: they mean the difference between life and death for those who are genuinely seeking the protection of those programs. In any one year, less than one per cent of the world's 10 million refugees will be resettled. In any one year, 9.9 million people will miss out. These places are precious. That is why it is crucial that we decide who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come. That is why it is crucial that Australia runs our immigration program—not people smugglers who gamble with lives and sell hope to the highest bidder.
The commitment of the former minister for immigration, who brings this motion as a private member, put in place a program that would ensure 1,000 places for Assyrians in this situation. Those Assyrians go across a range of nationalities. They are Armenians; they are in other places. That was a worthy measure and it is one that the coalition has supported. I hope, if the coalition is elected to government, it is one that we can continue for some time—supporting Assyrians who are placed in this situation. We are in a situation to work with the local Assyrian community here in Australia to better identify those whom we are able to help. That population obviously also includes the Armenians who find themselves in this conflict.
Just the weekend before last, I found myself in Lebanon and was in a situation to observe at a little closer quarters the conflict that is occurring in Syria. This is a very real situation that has no obvious conclusion, although we can all assume that there will be hardship, there will be great brutality and there will be significant humanitarian consequences. A coalition government, if we are elected, will stand ready to assist with supporting the families of Assyrians here in Australia with being able to ensure that the refugee and humanitarian program is available to those who come through the appropriate method.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) (21:21): I rise to support this motion brought forward by the member for McMahon, because it is a very important motion. I would like to draw attention to the plight of the Assyrian people in Syria who have been caught up in the civil war. Syrian Assyrians are very aware of the persecution of Christians in Iraq following the removal of Saddam over the past 10 years. Many of the Assyrians in Syria actually fled Iraq over the last 10 years and sought haven in Syria and are now being forced to flee Syria as well.
The Assyrian communities in Syria have had a complex relationship with the Assad regime, as was the case with the Assyrians in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Violence against Assyrians is escalating in north-eastern Syria, which is home to tens of thousands of Christians, many from my community. With government forces, Arab rebels of the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish fighters locked in a three-way struggle for control, the area's Christian population has found itself caught in the middle. The Assyrians have become a target for criminals and terrorists. They are fleeing en masse. About half a million Assyrians have already escaped Syria. As well, the region has succumbed to lawlessness. Christians have become the target of armed rebel gangs which are kidnapping people and holding them to ransom. All sides are perpetrating terrible injustices on the local population, and this is adding to the mass exodus.
The Assyrian community of my electorate desperately want to help their relatives in Syria, but they feel helpless. They have been trying their best to support their families in Syria by collecting money every month to send to help provide food, shelter and support. But this has now become impossible due to Western Union closing its branches, leaving many of my constituents with no way to transfer funds to support their families. The community still collects money and banks it here in the hope they will soon find another way to transfer this much-needed support.
In recent months the priest from Tal Hamas—a town many of my constituents come from—was shot dead in front of the community. The rebels went on to occupy the town, taking over the school, council buildings and many other amenities, which they are still occupying today. This has led to more than 300 families fleeing to parts of Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. Another village near Hasakah was recently bombed by regime forces on the grounds that rebels were believed to be hiding there. The local church and several homes were destroyed and one student was killed.
Trying to reach a refugee camp over the border gives no guarantee of safety, and many Assyrians are now bypassing refugee camps on the border and heading to monasteries and towns further inland. They are too afraid to stay in the refugee camps. The situation in Syria has gone from bad to worse and it seems it will only get worse before it gets any better. It has been two years already and more than 70,000 people have lost their lives. We all hope the Syrian crisis will be resolved very soon and peacefully.
I would like to thank the member for McMahon for his work and compassion. As immigration minister and as member for McMahon, he has developed responses and allocated an extra 1,000 places in the refugee program to people affected by the Syrian crisis to be resettled in Australia. This included Syrian nationals and members of the Iraqi community, many of whom had family links to Australia. When I sit in the lounge rooms of local Assyrians in my community and hear their stories, it is a plight that, as humans, we have to take very seriously. We have to see what is going on and understand the issues that they face locally. Anyone with a family would know that you always worry about your relatives when they are in harm's way, and many Assyrians are not having the opportunity to talk to their families and their loved ones overseas because of the issues of getting through. I think the member for McMahon should be congratulated for bringing this motion to the House. It is an important one. We hope that Assyrians are able to have a better life that is free from persecution and gives them the opportunities that they so deserve.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:26): I would also like to thank the member for McMahon for bringing this motion forward. If I have any Assyrians in my electorate I am not aware of it, but in all these cases where there are Christians in the world that are being persecuted—and that takes place across the whole world, in many places in many nations—I would like to take the opportunity to speak about it. It is a sad reality that in places around the world—in Iraq, in Syria particularly and in Egypt—it is usual that groups such as Christians are targeted by Islamicist extremists. That is the case most definitely in Iraq. When you look back upon what happened under the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, things were bad then, but things have only got worse since then.
These days we like to look upon the great term 'Arab Spring' as somehow leading to a great future—a pluralist, secular future where democracy reigns supreme. Yet in many ways it seems as if Iraq is the example that should have indicated to us for the future that that was not the case at all and that what replaces these autocratic regimes in the Middle East is so often extremist in its views. Always in the background is this Islamicist view—the Wahhabiism or Salafism that hearkens back to what some holding Islamicist views might call the 'golden age' of Islam. In any case, it always relates to persecuting, finding fault with and blaming minorities.
That is definitely the case in Iraq and Syria. As other members have alluded to, so often what has happened is that people who have fled the persecutions of Christians in Iraq have gone across the border into Syria only to find themselves now trapped between the Alawite regime of President Assad and the increasingly Islamicist opposition. The Islamicists blame the Christians for being on the government side, and the government blame the Christians for not being sufficiently supportive, and all the while the Christians have to make the decision, 'What are we going to do now?' Many have fled from Iraq into Syria and now have to flee again. At the heart of it is always the persecution of Christians.
Shortly I will also take the opportunity of tabling a petition from the Barnabas Fund which highlights the cause of Christians persecuted in the world, and I thank them for that. But when I saw that this motion was coming up I thought I would take this opportunity as well. I also congratulate the member for McMahon and all members that have—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 9:30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Banking
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (21:30): In November last year, this Labor government passed the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures Bill) 2012. That bill shortened from seven to three years the length of time that, if there were no transactions on a bank account, those funds would be considered 'unclaimed' and thereafter transferred to federal government revenue. The reason Labor passed this draconian legislation was to transfer $700 million of Australian taxpayers' hard-earned savings into government revenue as one of their many attempts to cover up Labor debt which now stands at $192 billion.
At the time, the coalition warned Labor the legislation was ill-considered and should not be passed. At the time I noted I had:
… deep reservations as to the potential unintended consequences that this legislation may have for many Australians with untouched funds in bank accounts.
Those unforeseen consequences are now being realised, with constituents in my electorate waking up to discover that the government has emptied their bank accounts.
My office was first contacted in February by Mr Gray of The Gap. He had received a letter from Westpac bank regarding a relative's account over which he has power of attorney. Normally at that time of year, the Gray family are away on holidays but this year, fortunately, they were not. They received quite a rude shock about the status of that account in a letter from their bank which said:
… it's been nearly three years since you last used your Westpac account … unless you transact on your account before 5 April 2013, your balance will be transferred to the Australian government. Once your money has been transferred, it won't earn interest.
You can imagine this family's shock to hear that the government would be taking their money if they did not make a transaction. The most grievous part of this story is that there were no transactions on the account because the money was being held to use on their relative's funeral. Happily, there had been no reason for them to even look at the account. They were also fortunate that their bank contacted them before their funds were taken. However, others have not been so lucky.
Two weeks ago, my office was contacted by Ms Williamson, who rang to say that morning she had checked her online savings account to find that the balance was suddenly zero dollars. She saw no messages from the bank and there was no final statement indicating exactly how much had been taken. After contacting her bank, she found that the money had been transferred to ASIC at the direction of government legislation. She spoke to ASIC, who told her that it could take more than 10 weeks after 1 July this year for her to get her money back.
But it gets worse. Last week, there were reports in the Courier Mail regarding Mr and Mrs Adrian Duffy of Toowong. The article said when Adrian and his wife:
… went to check their Suncorp account, they discovered their bank balance had plummeted from $22,616 to zero …
The couple had saved for 14 years in preparation for major health-related costs.
This was exactly the situation in which they found themselves, with Adrian having just come out of spending 21 days in hospital after a quintuple heart bypass and follow-up surgery. Again, the Duffy family, to their knowledge, had received no warning and no contact to advise that their money would be taken. Mr Duffy called it for what it is: stealing. On that weekend, the Courier Mail reported a further case of a Brisbane business women who had more than $157,000 handed over to ASIC! These recent cases demonstrate that the concerns about which the coalition and the banks had warned Laborhave come to pass. I have no doubt that this situation is being repeated for thousands of Australians across the country.
On 29 May, the government introduced the Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. This amendment reverses—at least in the short term—some of the worst effects of the original legislation, for example by allowing customers to keep money where they make transactions on their account even after the bank has assessed their money as unclaimed. While this Labor government is belatedly making some changes in acknowledgement of the errors present in their original legislation, this is no consolation or remedy for the stress and anxiety that they have already caused for constituents in my electorate.
Regional Development Australia Fund
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (21:35): It is a pleasure this evening to be able to speak about some good news for one of the towns in my electorate which is to be the beneficiary of funds from the Regional Development Australia Fund. Back in 1976 residents in my electorate of La Trobe constructed a kindergarten in McBride Street in Cockatoo. It was built on council land with money raised by a co-op set up by Cockatoo residents. The co-op raised money to build the kindergarten and then to construct both lawn bowls and tennis facilities for local residents. It was a fairly impressive effort for what was then and indeed still is now a relatively small community, but certainly a determined community. The kindergarten was an unusual building in its design and it has proved be an unusual building in its subsequent use and now in its preservation.
The building is circular and a false facade around the roof line was intended to make it resemble a carousel with model horses around. It is significant in the life of the town and in the Dandenong Ranges because on Ash Wednesday, 16 February 1983, bushfires struck the Cockatoo township and around 300 residents—including children, the elderly and those with disabilities—took shelter in the building, along with many of their pets. That was around one-tenth of the town's population and they were supported by the Red Cross. Several residents climbed up onto the roof and certainly did their best to clear burning embers from the building to stop it from igniting. The fires took a severe toll on the town. Seven residents perished and many buildings were destroyed. Happily, all of those who took refuge at the kindergarten survived the ordeal.
The kindergarten continued to be in operation until 2005, but it then fell into considerable disrepair and became unable to operate, which was a shame considering the significance that its construction had in bringing the town together and its subsequent significance as a fire refuge for so many locals during one of the most terrible natural disasters in that region's history. So it is a marvellous thing that, through the third round of the federal government's Regional Development Australia Fund, funding has been allocated to build a new memorial at the former kindergarten site. It will allow local residents, others throughout the Dandenong Ranges and those who visit the region to pay tribute to those who have been so badly affected by the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires. It will restore the site for use by local residents. Indeed, the kindergarten will form the basis of a new visitor information centre and will commemorate the losses suffered through bushfires while at the same time promoting bushfire awareness and prevention within the region. Though the building is really just a roof and a frame now, after a significant local campaign it has achieved heritage listing; indeed, it was the first site in Victoria to gain heritage listing on the basis of its significance as a bushfire refuge. This is once again a reflection of the strength and perseverance of the local community.
Cardinia Shire Council will receive $500,000 for the restoration of the site. The funding will also deliver employment benefits to the region, as it is expected to create up to seven new jobs during the project's construction and in the first five years of its operation. The memorial is expected to be completed by mid-2014 and it is a very welcome development in the region. I commend all of those who had the foresight and the dedication to bring the project to the attention of the RDA and all of those local residents who have fought to preserve the memory of the events of February 1983 and of those who perished. The history of this area is one of resilience, one of perseverance and determination, and this is simply a marvellous result for a small community and for the region as a whole.
Education
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:38): To the vast majority of the people and the 41 schools in my electorate the word 'Gonski' is little more than a political slogan. The Australian Education Bill 2012—the government's hollow response to the Gonski education review—sets out aspirational goals. It is aspirational because the government has promised $9.8 billion in so-called new money for schools but almost all of the money falls beyond the forward estimates, beyond the next four years, beyond three future elections.
The Australian Education Bill was described by the Prime Minister as the most important bill of 2012, yet the bill is just nine pages and 1,400 words long. It is full of words that signify hope and aspiration for schooling—words that nobody could disagree with—but it lacks any detail at all of how the Prime Minister's goals for schooling are to be delivered. This bill is devoid of any detail and must be updated with new information, so until then there is very little that can be said on how the proposed funding formula might impact schools in my electorate.
While the government claims that extra funding is required to improve the performance of our schools, they will spend $4.7 billion less on education in the four years to 2016 than was budgeted last year. On top of the discontinued programs there is a further billion-dollar reduction in ongoing funding set aside for non-government schools when comparing last year's budget figures to this year's figures. This reduction in funding for non-government schools is very alarming for my electorate of Goldstein, which has the second-highest concentration of private schools of any Victorian federal electorate. Cuts to private school funding means that school fees go up, leading to less choice in education. Families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. Schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future.
The headmaster of Brighton Grammar School, Mr Michael Urwin, recently expressed significant concerns:
There are significant concerns, however. These concerns primarily relate to: the delay in confirming specific details and hence the impact on budget planning; the quality of data being used; the lack of certainty regarding indexation; compliance issues and possibly a significant increase in reporting requirements; and the need for absolute certainty when requested to sign agreements.
I remember the anxiety schools in my electorate faced in 2004 when Labor planned to pull funding from independent schools under Mark Latham's infamous hit list. Labor simply does not understand the vital role that independent schools play. We know that the keys to better schools are better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more community engagement and more principal autonomy. Shoving money into perceived problems is very much the Labor way. We have seen a massive spike in spending under this government across various areas, but can anyone say that services have actually improved? In fact international comparisons on literacy and numeracy has shown a serious decline. This is perhaps best symbolised by the overpriced and in many cases unwanted school halls under Labor's Building the Education Revolution program.
The key is to get funding right. It must be clear that future funding from the Australian government will flow through not only to government schools but also to non-government schools or non-government school systems through a direct legislative relationship. Every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government no matter which system they fall under, and there must be accountability and proper targeting of education spending.
As a committed federalist, I do not believe in Labor's top-down approach to service provision. Instead, we should be working with the states and with schools to find out what they want and what they need. To this end the coalition have broad principles that we believe should underpin any approach to school funding and reform. First, families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. Second, all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education. Third, student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socioeconomic need. Fourth, students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling. Fifth, as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems. Sixth, schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students. Seventh, every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government, and funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding towards education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.
The devil is in the detail, and the people of Goldstein wait with bated breath for the nuts and bolts of Labor's plans. (Time expired)
United Kingdom Economy
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (21:43): In late April the sister party of the opposition, Britain's Conservative government, faced some significant reverses with regard to financial commentary. Fitch became the latest credit rating agency to strip the UK of its coveted AAA rating. IMF chief, Christine Lagarde, commented:
We have said that should growth abate, should growth be particularly low, then there should be consideration to adjusting by way of slowing the pace—
of austerity. That was a period in which, of course, unemployment in the UK reached 2.56 million and, in contrast with Australia's 5.6 per cent, 7.9 per cent. At that time Polly Toynbee in The Guardian newspaper commented:
All he—
Osborne—
has left to keep him up is blind faith. Growth is flat, debt is rising, banks won't lend, business won't invest without consumer demand. Now Osborne has lost his last prop as unemployment rises. Last week Osborne's most crucial supporter betrayed him: the IMF, once staunch proponent of his austerity, came knocking at his door. His performance was "lacklustre"—a strong word for IMF officials. They warn "it may be time to consider adjustment to the original fiscal plans".
That kind of analysis, that kind of thinking, certainly has not affected the opposition. Whilst in Australia it could be contended, as Alan Mitchell in the 18-19 May Financial Review did, that:
The government was dealt a poor hand.
The slump in nominal GDP … has been dramatic and tax revenue per dollar of nominal GDP has fallen.
… … …
If the global recovery is not running smoothly and commodity prices are volatile, a deterioration in the trend could be difficult to recognise.
Indicating that, despite late knowledge by those opposite, it was not all that clear that the significant write-downs that occurred in Australia would do so. Of course, in the same month when the unemployment rate in the UK was climbing to 7.9 per cent in Australia there were 50,000 new jobs created, making a total of 960,000 under this administration.
The IMF has not only been vocal with regard to the failings of the British government; in January this year it also had some commentary with regard to Australia's most wasteful spending. It noted that it was actually during the John Howard regime. The study by the International Monetary Fund—no radical think tank—bills itself as the first to examine 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. The IMF study mirrors findings in a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession. The number of big-spending decisions worth more than $1 billion climbed from one in the first Howard budget to nine in the last. The proportion of savings measures fell from one-third of budget measures at the start of the Howard era to 1.5 per cent at the end. So we had a situation where at a time when revenues were far larger and taxation was a greater percentage of GDP than it is today there was extremely wasteful spending that has led to part of the situation we face today.
As they advocate austerity over there there has been a major demolition job undertaken on this theory. Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, absolutely destroyed one of the leading intellectual engines for austerity measures in the world—demolition of the article 'Growth in a time of debt' by Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. He exposed an artefact of programming mistakes, data omissions and peculiar statistical techniques. He suddenly made a remarkable number of prominent people look foolish. That article of course had for years argued that economies fall off a cliff once government debt exceeds 90 per cent of GDP. Day after day we hear those opposite say that we should emulate Uzbekistan and we should try to learn from the Cameroons, who have an extremely low level of government debt. What we have seen in recent months is analysis of the so-called argument that low levels of debt lead to economic resurgence. The major work trying to prove that in the early 21st century has actually been exposed through major statistical errors. Of course, the authors were not too quick in coming forward to make the work available to the general public. It took very determined action by Thomas Herndon and others to expose this document. Interestingly enough, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, which emerged from World War II with high debt— (Time expired)
Swan Electorate
Mr IRONS (Swan) (21:48): I rise to update the House on some local issues in my electorate of Swan. In 2010 I started a campaign to attract the AFL West Coast Eagles to relocate their training and administration base to Lathlain Oval to coincide with the new Burswood stadium being built in my electorate of Swan. Since then I have worked closely with West Coast Eagles CEO, Trevor Nisbett, and am pleased to report to the parliament that progress is being made with Lathlain Park one of five sites being seriously considered by the Eagles. It is a good option.
As a former WAFL footballer for the East Perth Football Club, a former board member and former director of junior development and a current patron of the Perth Football Club, I want to see Lathlain become a key centre for sporting and community infrastructure in Perth. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the Lathlain area and for the Perth Football Club. In my capacity as the local MP for Swan I support this option, as do many others. My feedback is that the Town of Victoria Park council is 100 per cent supportive of this, as well as the Demons, the Perth Football Club.
I note there was concern early in the year when the WA Labor Party announced a policy to scrap the Burswood stadium if it won the March election. This was embarrassing for the Labor MLA who had strongly supported the stadium and even had photos with the Premier and Mayor of Victoria Park showing his support. However, following the re-election of the WA Liberals the stadium will definitely go ahead at Burswood and I will continue to support the Eagles option for Lathlain.
Another Lathlain specific issue I will highlight is the vacant Red Castle Hotel. The site had become a place for squatters and problems reported included drug use and threatening behaviour in the neighbourhood. Following calls from residents I worked with the local police and the Town of Victoria Park to secure the property. Residents are clearly fed up with the lack of progress towards redevelopment of this site and want to see action to progress it. The previous developer decided not to proceed and to sell the site in January this year after the council put dozens of conditions on the redevelopment proposal. The property sale is now in the process of being settled. I hope the new owners do something with the site sooner rather than later that suits everyone, as it is quite an eyesore. This is a serious issue for many of the residents in Lathlain.
The last issue I will touch on—and it has made national headlines over the past week—is asbestos exposure and the NBN. I first raised this issue in February and wrote to Syntheo after a constituent from Victoria Park in my electorate sent my office two photographs of Syntheo subcontractors removing an asbestos pit. I would now like to quote from an article that appeared in The Australian on 27 February, by Annabel Hepworth:
NBN Co is undertaking its own investigation into concerns raised by a West Australian household with a Liberal MP that asbestos might have been released during works on the rollout of the $37.4 billion network.
Liberal MP Steve Irons wrote to the chief executive of Syntheo - one of the National Broadband Network construction partners - after a household in Victoria Park, in inner-southeastern Perth, took two photographs they said were of a worker breaking down an old Telstra pit with a mash hammer while wearing latex gloves and a protective face mask—
while his colleague worked nearby without a mask or any protective clothing at all. It continues:
Mr Irons wrote that his constituents were concerned at "the potential liberation of asbestos spores into the air".
Syntheo is conducting detailed investigations.
NBN Co spokeswoman Rhonda Griffin said the company and its contractors took these matters "very seriously", and the company was also liaising with Comcare in WA as it, too, had been contacted by Mr Irons.
"We fully support further investigations by the proper authorities given that the two still photographs supplied are open to interpretation," Ms Griffin said.
Town of Victoria Park chief executive Arthur Kyron said that after Mr Irons's office made a complaint about the breaking up of a pit that might have contained asbestos, an environmental health officer saw no obvious signs of asbestos products. Laboratory tests showed a "minute trace" of asbestos in one sample, but the asbestos was not a danger in this form if properly maintained.
"We found no connection between this tiny amount and the activities of the NBN contractor. This particular pit was being constructed adjacent to an asbestos fence in the area."
The fact is, it was an asbestos pit. The NBN Co. spokeswoman, Rhonda Griffin, and the Town of Victoria Park need to look seriously at their response to those issues. As yet, I have not had a reply from Comcare. (Time expired)
Roberston Electorate
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (21:53): I rise with considerable pride to speak on another wonderful community initiative that I was able to celebrate on Sunday, 26 May—just a little over a week ago—with the local community at the Wagstaffe community hall.
The book that I have before me, to which I will refer this evening—People, Place and Progress: A History of the Association at Wagstaffe and Pretty Beach,by Robyn Warburton—was the book we were celebrating on that occasion. I have mentioned in this place what a beautiful place I live in and the Bouddi Headland, where the Wagstaffe, Pretty Beach and Hardys Bay communities live, was very much a drawcard for people from Sydney who went on holidays. There were many stories about the ferry ride across from Woy Woy—as people got off the train, they made their way to the ferry and headed from Woy Woy over to the peninsula. We heard many of these wonderful stories on that Sunday.
Robyn Warburton is a semiretired teacher who was very happy with her career but, in retirement, has taken on this incredible endeavour of telling the story of our local community. On the day of the launch, she reminded us once again of how she arrived when the Wagstaffe hall was undergoing a massive clean-up. Having finally been delivered to the local community on Christmas Eve 1953, the hall later fell into quite a state of disrepair. It was not until the nineties that two amazing women, Fay Gunther and Gwen Perry, got together and put this hall back into shape. Now it is a real hub for us to celebrate all the achievements—the many birthdays, parties and celebrations—that go on there; and live music with no-one speaking, just sitting and enjoying the music, is now another of the things we can do at Wagstaffe hall.
On that Sunday afternoon we were treated to a beautiful visual and verbal history of the 1950s. John Herron spoke of his father, the projectionist, who was critical in getting the hall established in the first place. John's father, Laurie, was a draughtsman and actually did the drawings and plans for the building. John had this to say:
After coming home on Friday night and having a quick tea, he was off down to the hall to put the pictures on. He was then not an iceman, not a draughtsman, not a designer, but a projectionist. He was the projectionist—the picture show man, in living black and white.
That sense of the community gathering on Friday evenings at Hardys Bay, to experience the films they were able to show in their own community, was tremendous. John Herron told us about the fifties through his eyes as a child and recalled the wonderful challenges they faced and rose to.
Jim McFadyen, who is a local Labor councillor, spoke about the 1960s, and it was a real pleasure to see the projectionist put up pictures of Pam, his wife, in her teenage years. Jim and Pam are wonderful mainstays of our local community. Bev Walther spoke about the seventies. Robert Bell, an independent councillor who was one of the longest-serving mayors of our region, spoke about the 1980s, when there was a real burgeoning of progress associations and their impact in our community more broadly. I mentioned Fay Gunther and Gwen Perry, who were instrumental in bringing the old hall back to life and, funnily enough, changing its orientation from looking into the community—turning it around so you can look out through the glass, now, over the ferry wharf at Wagstaffe to the beautiful Brisbane Water. Finally, we were treated to a version of 'what does it cost a person to be involved in the community' by Graham Anderson, who spoke about the journey of the noughties.
This community on the Bouddi Peninsula is setting a standard for local communities in terms of really celebrating our history and keeping it alive, and the power of individuals to get together to work as citizens and call for the things they need for their community. Robyn commences the book with the very first mention of the community getting together; she there regales us with a story of parents putting their signatures to a request for a school in the local area. These documents that she has gathered together—the photographs, the stories, the oral histories and written stories that come from the progress association—were about to be turfed out in the nineties as that reparation was about to begin. Robyn is a woman of great integrity and love of community who has a passion for telling stories in an authentic and articulate way, and I think she has done a great service to our community in the provision of this book. (Time expired)
Petition: Barnabas Fund Proclaim Freedom
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:59): This is the second time I have presented a petition from the Barnabas Fund to the House of Representatives; however, in the cause of freedom of religion and the persecution of Christians around the world, I have spoken in the House on many occasions.
The task of the Barnabas Fund is to show and make clear that, currently, there are 200 million Christians around the world who are being persecuted, discriminated against and disadvantaged. To that end I will, at the end of my comments, present a petition containing 15,155 signatures from all over Australia. That petition is the Proclaim Freedom petition, which calls upon the Australian government to:
Recognise that Christians around the world currently face unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the most persecuted groups in the world;
Put the plight of persecuted Christians both individually and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with the countries concerned;
Promote freedom of religion for all using diplomatic relations, bi-lateral ties, aid and agreed international obligations on core human rights and
Promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians are held accountable for their crimes.
Christians are one of the largest and most persecuted groups in the world. Yet they often appear to be the most neglected group in Western governments' foreign policies. There is little concrete engagement with the issue of anti-Christian persecution, even though government may recognise that respect for minorities and human rights is a foundation stone for national and international peace and security.
The Barnabas Fund initiated their Proclaim Freedom petition as a means of providing them with the opportunity to call on the Australian government to pursue decisive policies, aimed at putting pressure on nations that persecute or condone the persecution of Christians and assisting other countries to improve the lot of minority groups within their borders. On this point, I think it is important that the government recognises and takes active steps to raise the issue of religious freedom and diversity in those countries that we have diplomatic relationships with around the world.
I agree with the Barnabas Fund that the Australian government should be active in promoting human rights in other countries for all minorities, including the 200 million Christians living under the shadow of persecution, discrimination and disadvantage. We should work to ensure that other countries bring to justice citizens who either incite anti-Christian hatred or engage in anti-Christian violence.
I know of this persecution. I have stood in the floodwaters of the Mekong River in Vietnam and prayed with the Mennonites in Saigon at the Cow Shed Church, because they would not bow to the government of Vietnam and who, as a result of not bowing to the government of Vietnam, were driven from the house where they worshipped. I have spoken with Catholic Priest Father Ly in Hue, because he would not toe the line of the Vietnamese Communist Party. We have seen the attacks on the Coptic Church in Egypt and today in parliament we have spoken about the Christians in Syria and also in Iraq. In too many places around the world, churches are burning and Christians are persecuted. This petition raises the voices of thousands of Australians to cry out for those who suffer for their faith. I thank the Barnabas Fund and their supporters for their strong support for the persecuted church. Their cause is just and, unfortunately, the need is great.
I would also like to pay tribute to the international director of the fund, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, for his leadership and his launch of the international petition. I also thank past managing director of the fund in Australia, the Reverend Ian Wright, and the new managing director, Colin Johnston, for progressing the petition in Australia. I also thank every church that participated and every person who signed the petition.
Madam Speaker, I now present the Proclaim Freedom petition of the Barnabas Fund, with 15,155 signatures:
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the plight of persecuted Christians throughout the world. We therefore ask the House to:
Recognise that Christians around the world currently face unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the most persecuted groups in the world;
Put the plight of persecuted Christians both individually and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with the countries concerned;
Promote freedom of religion for all using diplomatic relations, bi-lateral ties, aid and agreed international obligations on core human rights and
Promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians are held accountable for their crimes.
from 15,155 citizens
Petition received.
Gillard Government
Mr LYONS (Bass) (22:03): The Gillard Labor government believes in supporting families and in giving every child the best possible start in life. We understand the cost-of-living pressures on working families. We have eased those pressures through tax cuts and increased family payments. We have provided childcare assistance and the Schoolkids Bonus and introduced Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme.
We have also developed a plan for properly resourcing all Australian classrooms, teachers and students for generations to come: the National Plan for School Improvement. Under the national plan, we want to introduce a needs-based funding model based on the Gonski review recommendations. If state and territory governments sign up to the plan, schools across the country will benefit from an extra $14.5 billion in public investment over the next six years.
Under our plan, every state and every sector will see increased funding and more support for students in the classroom. As a bare minimum, we want every school in Australia to receive its current funding level next year, plus indexation of three per cent. Many schools will receive more than this—schools that need additional resources the most. Teachers in my electorate of Bass know how important it is. When I visit schools and talk to teachers and parents, they tell me that public schools need more support. We are prepared to guarantee this and are asking the states and territories to do the same. This means that, in real terms, no school will be worse off. We cannot be any clearer than that.
Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition and I operate in different circles. This is evident from his comments on 20 August last year, when he said, 'The current funding system poses no injustice to public schools.' He said, 'If anything, the injustice is the other way.' I know that teachers in my electorate of Bass work hard. Indeed, I know that because, on a very personal level, my daughter Michelle is a school teacher and my wife works in school administration. Many teachers have emailed me, telephoned me or come to my office to tell me just how important it is that we have properly funded public schools. They want their students to succeed and achieve to their fullest potential. The way that schools are currently funded means that this is not always the case.
The Labor government understands that going to school is absolutely essential but it can be expensive. There are expenses like school uniforms, school shoes, textbooks, camps, excursions, as well as extracurricular activities such as music lessons. This government has helped to lighten the load for 1.3 million families with the Schoolkids Bonus. The first instalment of the Schoolkids Bonus was paid in January this year. Eligible parents will receive the second instalment in July, before term 3 starts. I know this is a big help to families in my electorate, so it baffles me why those opposite want to rip it away.
Labor know that about one million families were missing out on their full entitlements under the old system, the education tax refund. For working families on low incomes it is simply too expensive to pay the school expenses first and then wait months to get the money back. Those opposite have no credible plan to support families. The Liberal Party does not understand why low- and middle-income families deserve extra money to help put their kids through school. The Leader of the Opposition does not think parents can be trusted to spend this money on their kids.
Let me remind the House what the Leader of the Opposition said on 9 May 2012: 'You can go and blow it on the pokies, so it's just another cash handout.' As workplace relations minister, he actually opposed a paid parental leave scheme and said that it should be introduced over his government's dead body. One could ask when he is going to fulfil his commitment to the Australian people! And he wants to tax businesses to pay for his millionaire mums' paid parental leave scheme, meaning that hardworking families will have to pay more at the checkout so that he can give wealthy mums up to $75,000. Australians have a clear choice in September between a government that looks after families or a coalition which has spent the last five years being mindlessly negative to try and deny families a fair go.
Education Funding
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (22:07): School funding and getting the best possible educational outcomes for our students are important issues—important for my 39 schools in Higgins, and for their students, parents and teachers. Critically, it is important for our nation. I will always stand up for better education and stronger schools in this place, and have made many speeches on the subject. The approach, though, that the Gillard government has taken to education and education funding has been to divide and spin—to put pressure on the states to sign up to a new funding arrangement without putting all of the relevant information on the table for the independent, Catholic and state sectors to make considered and informed decisions.
Rather than a political point-scoring debate, there needs to be a rational discussion, with all of the facts on the table. And, in the brief time available tonight, I would like to outline some of the key facts in this debate. The first fact is this: the government is not delivering on what the Gonski report recommended. Talk of delivering Gonski is a sham. The key recommendation of the Gonski report was an additional $6.5 billion in new funding for schools each and every year. Over the forward estimates, over the next four years, this would amount to $26 billion. Yet, when you examine the budget papers, this is not what the government has promised to deliver. Instead, it has only promised $9.8 billion over the next six years, with only $2.8 billion being provided for during the forward estimates—that is, over the next four years. This is but a fraction of what the Gonski report recommended. But the real concern is that, even with this so-called new money, the government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
That brings me to the second fact, which is: the government is cutting overall funding to school education. Over the forward estimates period 2017-18, the only new or additional money for education will come from the state and territory governments that agree to Labor's proposal, not the Commonwealth itself. The government's new funding model is, in fact, a promise for $7 billion more in 2018-19, which is in two elections' time—hardly the solid financial commitment that they purport it to be. When you look more closely, you see that the government is actually delivering a $325 million cut in overall funding over the next four years. Budget paper 21 indicates that there will be around $2.9 billion of additional money for the National Plan for School Improvement, and yet, at the same time, there are reductions, redirections and savings of approximately $3.2 billion. When you look even more closely, Victoria specifically is losing out on more than $152.5 million over the next three years.
The government is trying to terrify the states into signing up and signing up quickly, claiming that they will lose around $6.4 billion, based on a false indexation assumption. The government is claiming it will deliver an indexation rate of around 4.7 per cent, and claims the coalition will only deliver three per cent if we stick with the current funding model. Yet, under the current funding model, the average school recurrent costs have averaged 5.6 per cent in indexation over the last 10 years, which is hardly a cut. The coalition has a plan to ensure that schools do not lose money and that levels of funding are maintained in real terms, and we have been consistent on this from day 1.
The third fact is: the government is trying to keep the independent and Catholic school sectors in the dark. The government has imposed a timetable for the states to sign up by 30 June. Why? Because the quadrennium of funding finishes at the end of the year. Despite having sat on the Gonski recommendations for more than 18 months, we are only learning about their funding model, in fits and starts, now. The government is using this as a lever to force an outcome and to encourage the independent and Catholic school sectors to take them on trust.
The Chief Executive of Independent Schools Victoria, Michelle Green, warned that a series of different figures have been provided from the government about the impact of its reforms and of how that impact would affect individual schools in Victoria. She stated:
There's a pointy end for us—our funding model runs out at the end of this year. Schools need certainty of funding … It may well mean that some schools in Victoria in January don't know what their income is going to be, what their cashflow is going to look like and there may be some closures as a result.
That is certainly not the outcome we want. There has not been any open analysis or sharing of modelling, and much of the discussions have been conducted in secret—different deals depending on who is talking to who. That is why the Victorian Minister for Education has asked for everybody to be around the same table—Catholic, independent and state schools.
The fourth fact I wanted to raise in the remaining time is: education is more than just funding. The government does not seem to understand that teacher quality, mentoring, performance-based pay for teachers and school autonomy are all critical factors impacting on getting better educational outcomes for all students. Under this government, our educational outcomes have gone backwards. (Time expired)
Department of Health and Ageing
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (22:12): I have spoken in this House on the important work done by the Department of Health and Ageing, particularly in the areas of immunisation, diabetes prevention and health promotion. Tonight I would like to talk further on this topic, because the work of the Department Health and Ageing is so broad reaching and, I believe, so incredibly important.
The Leader of the Opposition does not believe that the work of the Department of Health and Ageing is important or so broad reaching. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition would have Australians believe that we do not need a Department of Health and Ageing at all. The Leader of the Opposition has questioned publicly and repeatedly whether the Department of Health and Ageing needs all of its staff, considering that, in his words, 'They do not run a single hospital or nursing home, dispense a single prescription or provide a single medical service.'
In the 2011-12 federal budget, this government announced a $2.2 billion National Mental Health Reform package. This reform package, administered by the Department of Health and Ageing, is improving the lives of thousands of Australians with mental illness by providing more intensive support services and better coordinating those services for people with severe and persistent mental illness who have complex care needs; by targeting support to areas and communities that need it most, such as Indigenous communities and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas that are underserviced by the current system; by helping to detect potential mental health problems in the early years; and by supporting young people who struggle with mental illness.
Recently I attended the opening of a new home in Kambah in my electorate with the ACT Chief Minister. We have provided joint funding for this initiative. The home provides an opportunity for young adults in their late teens and early 20s who are battling mental illness issues, and who have come out of hospital and intensive care, to enter an environment where they can rehabilitate amongst their peers with the intensive support they need but in a less clinical environment. It is a great initiative and it was wonderful to be at the opening of that new house.
The reforms were developed—with the assistance of the department, I might add—with particular reference to what has proven to work in the past, such as: models of youth-friendly mental health services; the clinical effectiveness and accessibility of e-mental health services; the ability of programs to meet needs in hard-to-reach groups; the success of social support services to reconnect people back in the community; and the growing body of evidence that supports early intervention in childhood development.
Importantly, the reforms recognise that the Australian government, states and territories, non-government organisations and the private sector all deliver mental health programs. While the overarching objectives of these programs are often quite similar, to date there is very little in the way of formal links across and between programs. This leads to inefficient service delivery through duplicative processes. It can also mean a fragmented system which individuals suffering mental illness find hard to navigate.
Individuals and providers are not interested in which government department is supposed to be funding a service; they just want to know that the service is available when and as it is needed. Through these mental health reforms, the government is rectifying this. Through the Department of Health and Ageing, the government is exercising national leadership—putting its own house in order while giving states and territories an incentive to dedicate more resources to the mental health system through a national partnership.
Achieving these important reforms will require support, engagement and collaboration across all levels of government, non-government organisations, individuals and providers. Importantly, achieving these reforms would not be possible without the Department of Health and Ageing. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to note, before he cuts thousands of jobs within this department, that while it may not be dispensing prescriptions, this department is overseeing much-needed, nationally coordinated mental health reform. Together with the 3.2 million Australians who have suffered a mental illness in the last year, their friends, family, carers and countless other Australians, I believe this is a worthy task.
Those opposite have complete contempt for public servants doing great work in the Department of Health and Ageing. They have complete contempt for those who work to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians in the national interest. They have complete contempt for the Public Service. They have promised to abolish 12,000 to 20,000 Public Service jobs should they win the election in September. The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour: I ask Canberrans to remember 1996.
Road Safety
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (22:18): I rise to discuss the important issue of road safety and to highlight my concerns that more needs to be done to help reduce the enormous impact of road trauma on our nation. I believe there is a need for greater national leadership, with a renewed focus on building safer roads, supporting the rollout of safer vehicles and promoting improved driver behaviour.
While the nation's road toll has steadily fallen from nearly 2,900 deaths in 1982 to 1,300 deaths in 2012, more needs to be done to reduce the road toll and the number of serious injuries from vehicle accidents. The total annual cost of road trauma in economic terms is $27 billion, with 25 people dying and 600 people being seriously injured each week in Australia. Yes, we have made dramatic gains in the past, but it is time to reset the clock and bring on a new wave of reform with new energy and enthusiasm for the task of lowering the road toll.
I fear we have become somewhat complacent and, if not accepting of, we seem resigned to the fact that people will always die and people will always be seriously injured on our roads. That complacency and that sense of resignation needs to reversed as a matter of urgency. I support a more holistic approach from governments for reducing road trauma in recognition of the social and economic impacts across the entire community and a broad range of government departments that have a direct responsibility in this area.
At the moment, there is a very heavy emphasis on departments at both state and federal levels which have either an infrastructure component or an enforcement aspect to their responsibilities. But, as a recent paper from the Australasian College of Road Safety correctly emphasised, the impacts of road trauma flow across many portfolios and there is a compelling argument that it should be regarded as the highest-ranking public health issue facing our nation. As ACRS President Lauchlan McIntosh said:
Imagine if improvements to combat road trauma were a top national health priority—the effect on our nation's health, economy and wellbeing would be a gold standard for the global community.
There are many aspects to road safety, and the coalition will have more to say about this in the months ahead. But there is one area that I want to focus my comments on this evening, and that is the issue of safer cars. Recently, I attended a crash test in Sydney where the Australasian New Car Assessment Program demonstrated how it assesses vehicles which are sold on the domestic market. The vehicle I observed being tested was a Nissan Pulsar and it received a five-star rating, and it is worth noting that the federal government has a fleet-purchasing policy which mandates that all light passenger vehicles purchased by the Commonwealth must have a five-star ANCAP safety rating. That is a good policy, and it is one the coalition would endorse. But given we have that policy in place, and given everything we know about the importance of safer vehicles reducing the severity of injuries, why do we allow lesser vehicles to be sold on the Australian market?
It is my personal view that we should ban the importation of any vehicle sold in volume which does not achieve a minimum three- or, preferably, four-star ANCAP safety rating. Right now, we have vehicles on sale in Australia that the federal government would not let any public servant drive but that we are allowing to be imported and driven on our roads. In safety terms, these are duds and they should not be on our roads. They may be cheap but they are potentially deadly, and there is no logical reason why we should import vehicles with comparatively low ANCAP safety ratings.
If they are not good enough for Australian public servants, then they are not good enough for Australian families, they are not good enough for Australian workers and they are certainly not good enough for Australian kids. If these low-ranking vehicles are involved in an accident we know the occupants of these vehicles are more likely to be seriously injured or killed than if they had been driving a vehicle with a higher ANCAP safety rating in the same vehicle class. The people who are injured in such a crash are more likely to sustain more serious and more debilitating injuries that will diminish their quality of life and cost all Australian governments much more in terms of the overall health budget.
We should be telling the international vehicle manufacturing market that we will not tolerate the importation of such vehicles in the future. We should give the manufacturers fair warning and ban the importation of these vehicles as soon as possible. Lives can be saved and serious injuries can be minimised by the swift uptake of new technology and by ensuring that more Australians are driving safer vehicles. We should be banning the importation of any vehicle which does not achieve a minimum safety rating, because all vehicles manufactured in Australia already meet that high standard. It makes no sense to allow the importation of vehicles to compete with locally manufactured vehicles when we know they are not as safe and we know that any accidents will end up costing Australian taxpayers more in the longer term.
On a separate but related point, there is a need to ensure that international vehicle manufacturers make greater strides to ensure that new safety features are more quickly deployed to Australia, when they are developed. We know that manufacturers have sometimes in the past been slow to include new safety features in vehicles imported to Australia, despite the fact that those features are included in vehicles for sale in their country of origin. I think we can do better in that space as well.
The coalition recognises the need for increased national leadership and placing a higher priority on issues relating to road safety and reducing road trauma in our communities is a pressing area of national concern. While great progress has been made in reducing the road toll across Australia in the past 40 years, there is a concern within the coalition that momentum has been lost and there is a need for a fresh approach and reinvigorated commitment to tackling road trauma.
DisabilityCare Australia
Mr MARLES (Corio) (22:22): The implementation of DisabilityCare Australia will be a revolution for people with a disability and their carers in this country. Much has been said about the significance of it and tribute has been paid to the likes of Jenny Macklin and the Prime Minister, Bill Shorten, Jan McLucas and others who have worked tirelessly in this place to assist that campaign.
That Geelong is a launch site is a wonderful moment for people with disability and their carers in the City of Geelong. Today's decision to base the national headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia in Geelong is a wonderful feather in the cap for Geelong. This campaign has emanated from the civic leadership of Geelong, based on the idea that Geelong is the home of the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria, as well as being a launch site of DisabilityCare in Australia. This lends itself perfectly to Geelong being the national headquarters of Disability Care Australia.
It is true that the decision last Thursday week by Ford to cease making cars in Australia from 2016 did add some momentum, but the campaign to see the headquarters of NDIS in Geelong has been run for a year or more. It is an enormous tribute to those who have run the campaign. I want to thank the Victorian government for their support, and particularly to thank Minister Jenny Macklin for her advocacy in relation to this issue, and most particularly our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for making the decision to have the headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia based in Geelong.
For all the credit ascribed to people for this decision over the last 24 hours, most of the credit, the lion's share, goes to the civic leadership of Geelong who have run a fantastic campaign for more than a year to see this happen. I want to acknowledge some of those people. Keith Fagg, our mayor, launched the campaign a couple of months ago. Councillor Kylie Fisher, who has the portfolio for community development within the City of Greater Geelong, also tirelessly worked in relation to this campaign. Former mayor John Mitchell deserves to be very proud today. The Committee for Geelong has played an enormous role. Michael Betts, its chair, and Janet Dore its deputy chair is also the CEO of the Transport Accident Commission, along with Rebecca Casson, CEO for the City of Geelong. The former CEO of the Committee for Geelong, Peter Dorling, and the former chair, Jim Cousins, also played a role, as did Frank Costa who is always at the centre of the great achievements that occur in Geelong.
G21, the regional alliance of five councils in the region, along with the City of Greater Geelong also played a significant role. Ed Coppe, its chair; Elaine Carbines, its CEO; and its board consisting of Barb Abley, Michael Malouf, Jason Trethowan and Bernadette Uzelac; along with the other mayors who participate in G21, the Deputy Mayor of the Borough of Queenscliff, Bob Merriman; Libby Coker, the Surf Coast Shire Mayor; Lyn Russel, the Mayor of Colac; and Jenny Blake, the Mayor of the Golden Plains Shire. Jane Den Hollander, the Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University, Grant Sutherland, the CEO of Gordon TAFE have also been fantastic, as have the media in Geelong. The Geelong Advertiser, The Geelong Independent, K-Rock/Bay FM. And the state MPs: John Eren, Lisa Neville, Ian Tresise and Gail Tierney and from the government state MPs David Koch and Andrew Katos who have been very important in advocating to the Victorian government, along with David O'Brien.
Most of all there are the disability groups of Geelong of which there are many. Scope, Encompass, Kids +, Karingal, St Lawrence, Vision Australia, the Victorian Deaf Society, Villamanta, the Barwon Disability Resource Centre, Disability Rights and Advocacy Service, Gateway, Mackillop, Barwon Valley School, Nelson Park—and the list goes on. All of these have played a very significant role in the advocacy for this decision.
I want to thank my colleague Darren Cheeseman who with me has really enjoyed the privilege of providing some advocacy on behalf of this in this place. I feel very lucky that I live in a city with that sort of leadership. If you look at the response to the decision by Ford last Thursday week and the campaign around this, they have done a great job.
This is a decision which is for ever. This is a decision which will change the very character of Geelong. We are a manufacturing city. We are lifestyle city. But as a result of this decision, along with the TAC, we can now claim that we are a centre of public administration excellence. That will very much change our character going forward. It is the first time a major federal government agency will be located outside Canberra or Sydney. That is an enormous feather in the cap of Geelong. I want to thank everyone for the role they played in making this happen.
Petition: Youth Mental Health
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (22:28): I table a youth mental health petition calling on this parliament to provide a facility for a headspace unit in Griffith, in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. This petition is of the concerned residents of the Western Riverina region and the chief petitioner is Councillor John Dal Broi, the Mayor of Griffith City Council. The petition tells the House that the increasing incidence of mental health issues among young people within the communities of Hay, Hillston, Lake Cargelligo, Leeton, Narrandera, Darlington Point, Coleambally and Griffith requires urgent assistance by way of a headspace facility.
Statistically one in 17 teenagers and one in four people aged 18 to 25 years suffers from mental illness, with episodes of depression, severe anxiety or worse. Griffith is a great community and a vibrant community. Certainly a headspace unit would be very valuable to those people. It would fill in the gaps in health provision in the MIA and enable these young people to live full and active lives within the communities. I thank the House for its indulgence.
The petition read as follows—
Youth Mental Health Petition
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives.
This petition of the concerned residents of the Western Riverina Region, an area that includes the communities of Hay, Hiliston, Lake Cargelligo, Leeton, Narrandera, Darlington Point, Coleambally and Griffith, draws to the attention of the House the increasing incidence of mental health issues among young people within our communities. Statistically, one in seven teenagers and one in four people age 18 to 25 years suffers from mental illness, with episodes of depression, severe anxiety or worse. Mental health problems can, and have, cause devastation to individuals and families within our communities.
We, the undersigned, ask the House to call upon the Federal Government to provide additional services in the Western Riverina to assist young people from our communities that are suffering with mental health and wellbeing problems. Specifically, we request that funding be provided to establish a Headspace Centre in Griffith (a one-stop-shop that focuses on 12-25 year olds) to reduce some of the gaps that currently exist in youth mental health service provision and assist those young people to live full and active lives within our communities.
from 2,359 citizens
Petition received.
Adelaide: Traffic Congestion
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (22:29): In the remaining time, I would like to speak on one of my favourite topics, which is traffic congestion on South Road. Three weeks ago residents of Adelaide woke up to the announcement splashed on the front page of the Advertiser that the state government had come up with a new South Road plan. Now, less than three weeks after that was released, we see that the numbers do not stack up. Only $20 million has been put by the federal government towards that, with $5 million from the state government, and nothing will really get going until 2017. This is a fraud on the South Australian public.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 10:30 pm the debate is interrupted.
The House adjourned at 23:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Albanese: To move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the six private Members’ business notices by the Member for Calare, relating to the disallowance of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plans made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, being called on immediately and dealt with together, with separate questions being put on each.
Mr Cobb: To move:
That the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr Cobb: To move:
That the North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr Cobb: To move:
That the North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014‑2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr Cobb: To move:
That the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr Cobb: To move:
That the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2013-2023, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr Cobb: To move:
That the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr Hayes: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on 16 May 2013 two young activists, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, age 21, and Dinh Nguyen Kha, age 25, were sentenced to six and eight years, respectively, in jail by the People’s Court of Long An province in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;
(b) the two activists were arrested for distributing literature protesting against China’s claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea; and
(c) there are credible reports from various international agencies of continuing human rights violations in Vietnam which is evidenced by the high number of house detentions and imprisonment for people engaged in activities as basic as expressing views contrary to the Vietnamese Government’s position; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) refer the matters of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, and other issues concerning human rights in Vietnam that have been raised in the Australian Parliament, to the next round of the Australia‑Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue; and
(b) continue to take appropriate steps to convey to the Vietnamese Government that Australia expects Vietnam to honour its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Mr L. D. T. Ferguson: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) March 2013 marked the twenty‑fifth anniversary of the genocidal chemical attack by the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein on Halabja in the Kurdish region of Iraq that took at least 4,000 lives within a few minutes and displaced many thousands more, as part of his brutal Anfal Campaign of the 1980s targeting Kurdish and other minorities in Iraq;
(2) some 4,000 villages, 2,000 schools and 300 hospitals were destroyed, including through the use of chemical weapons across dozens of Kurdish villages;
(3) the regime was also responsible for the:
(a) deportation or forced relocation of tens of thousands of Faili Kurds on the basis that they were not considered Iraqi;
(b) abduction and execution of an estimated 8,000 Barzani Kurds who were subsequently buried in mass graves in southern Iraq; and
(c) arrest, execution and subsequent burial of up to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds in 1988, including women and children; and
(4) Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan Majid, known as Chemical Ali, were subsequently prosecuted and convicted for these and other crimes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Automotive Industry
SPC Ardmona
Dr STONE (Murray) (10:30): We woke up this morning to the news that Geelong is to be the site of the new administration headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I applaud this decision. A regional centre should always have been the choice for the location of the new facility, which we are told will eventually employ over 300. The announcement of the Geelong location in the very marginal Labor seat of Corio was explained this morning, however, as a response to the closure of the Ford car-making plant in October 2016, with the expected loss of over 510 jobs in Geelong and 650 jobs at Broadmeadows. The Labor government also just announced, on 1 June, a further $15 million to help Ford auto workers find new jobs after the closures. It has also already offered a package of $51.9 million in a jobs assistance package. The state has also offered many millions of dollars in support of these Ford workers. I applaud the generosity and quick response to these workers and their communities.
What I want to know is when the federal and state governments are going to acknowledge the same but more immediate plight of the orchardists, pickers and pruners, packers, transport sector and factory workers who are now facing the same extinction of jobs as a result of SPCA being unable to compete domestically or internationally with its fruit-preserving business. Workers in the Shepparton factory do not face immediate dismissal; only if there is no government response to their urgent request in the first instance for a safeguard action. This is a 200-day emergency WTO consistent action, which has been with this government now since 30 April. Nothing has been done.
Why is it that workers in a regional inland community, in this case the Goulburn and Murray valleys, are being ignored and their plight is being somehow dismissed as just one of those things that happen in country Australia, while those who are on the seaboard, in this case in Geelong and then in Broadmeadows, are being treated to generous responses to a crisis which will occur in two years time? There are over 2,700 jobs in the Goulburn and Murray valleys—I repeat: 2,700—which will go as a result of SPCA being unable to compete with cheap imports. These are the same factors that are knocking out the Ford motor industry in Australia. This cannot be tolerated. This is not fair. It is un-Australian.
Tomorrow there will be a delegation in this place with union members and orchardists. I beg this government to pay attention to their plight. They will also be meeting with the shadow ministers who have responsibility in those same areas. Can they go home tomorrow with some message of hope, with some equality of treatment, compared to the Ford auto industry workers? Or are they going to be told, yet again, 'Sorry, you are in the wrong part of Australia; we always ignore agriculture in this country; you just make do and try and turn into something else when the time comes, after the pushing-in of your trees in the orchards; it's just bad luck for you'?
Pastorelli, Mr Rocco
Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (10:33): I would like to pay tribute to the life and the community contribution of Rocco Pastorelli, a proud and parochial Western Australian who died prematurely in Perth on Sunday, 17 March 2013. Rocco battled a wretched illness with courage and stoicism. He was a man of many grounded passions: family, friends, social justice, the Labor movement and soccer. He adored his wife and family and fiercely protected them as best he could from the pending tragedy of his life being cut short.
It is fair to say that he was loved amongst his Labor colleagues, especially the distinguished former Premier of Western Australia Dr Geoff Gallop. Dr Gallop says of Rocco Pastorelli:
In my time with the Labor Party we tried to be very professional in the way we did things and Rocco was the personification of professionalism.
He also says:
It was my great privilege to work with him and to get to know Rocco initially as Leader of the Opposition and then as Premier.
Over a decade, Rocco worked very closely with me and he became a very good workmate and friend.
Then he went on to say Rocco was:
… a great psychologist. He would work out my moods when he met with me in the mornings and would act appropriately. We would discuss religion, politics, family; the kids growing up … our families became very close and shared our experiences.
Rocco Pastorelli was Dr Gallop's driver, but he was much more than that. He was more than that to Dr Gallop and the entire community in which he lived. He was an unselfish contributor to his church, the Labor movement and community groups. He kept working to the very end, winning the contract to build a church days before he was hospitalised with his illness. His support for the Labor Party never waivered and he campaigned while sick for the last state election held on March 9 this year.
Born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, Rocco completed a diploma in architectural drafting and served in the regular Army between 1974 and 1983. He served as a draftsman/engineer in the 22nd Construction Regiment and travelled to and served in Malaysia for six months. Later he completed his building ticket.
More recently, he worked for three Labor premiers as their driver, and built a reputation as a committed, reliable and supportive friend to many people. He was larger than life, and there are many people who, just like me, are deeply saddened by his loss. Maybe it is because he put others' needs first. He was such a generous volunteer, helping charities, community groups, schools and his local church. Nothing was too hard, no request too difficult, and there was always a smile on his face.
Foremost, though, was Rocco's dedication and passion for his family—his wife, Paolo, and his children Anthony, Marici and Stephen. Rocco's passing deeply saddened a whole community of people with whom he was in contact over the years. That was reinforced when many hundreds of people from all works of life gathered on 23 March this year for Rocco's funeral at St Joseph's Church in Subiaco, his service at Karrakatta Cemetery Crematorium and his wake at Hyde Park. There were many people there to pay tribute to a man who gave more than he took, who left the world better for having been in it. Rocco Pastorelli was, in every sense of the word, a true philanthropist. His passion was people.
Election Funding
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:39): What a great story the member for Brand just gave to the parliament. Every morning in this place the Speaker of the House of Representatives walks into the House, acknowledges the government then the opposition, waits for the mace to be placed on the table, then acknowledges the first Australians and reads a prayer. That prayer begins:
Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia.
I take that last piece, 'the true welfare of the people of Australia', very seriously. It makes me question my responses to particular issues that come before the parliament and come before us as politicians. I am coming to the point, in a moment, of public funding, which the minister may be interested in. We have a responsibility to our constituents, to our parties, to our tribes, to our families, but I do not want to be owned by anybody in this place. I want each member of parliament to have the freedom to address themselves to that prayer. So when I spoke out on public funding last week, and the controversy that surrounding the public funding, it was not because I disagree that there should be a conversation with the Australian people about how we fund election campaigns, what is the right amount to fund and how we might go about it. That is not my issue; my issue is that we should never foist anything on the Australian people without having a conversation about whatever we do—whatever the deliberation is—whether it be the call from the member representing Shepparton and fruit growers about her passion for her community and the issues that affect them, or the way we have election campaigns.
I do not want any member to be owned by a union. I do not want any Liberal to be owned by a funder that funds their election campaign. I can tell you: I do not know who funds my election campaign. I write thank-you letters to lots of people. I do not know whether they have given me $10 or $10,000. My party knows; I do not know. I do not want to know. I want the freedom to move and exist in the place without having to acknowledge that I have been funded by a particular group or individual. That is important to our democracy and the way we run this country. And we are blessed, under that prayer, that this country has been administered without corruption for the whole of the time of this country's existence. I thank the House for allowing me to speak.
Kingston Electorate: Roads
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers and Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) (10:39): I rise today to talk about an issue that is regularly raised with me in my local electorate, and that is the condition of local roads. The seat of Kingston is in an outer metropolitan area, and people rely on decent roads to get them around. Being so far, often, from the city, it is critically important that we have decent roads in the electorate. That is why I was very pleased that in the announcement of this budget there was money for both the Marion council and the City of Onkaparinga under Roads to Recovery. That is an important program, and I am pleased that that ongoing funding to the local councils will help continue to improve the roads.
In addition, I was pleased that my electorate received $434,000 in this budget to fix black spots in the south. In particular, I was pleased that the projects that have been approved include the intersection of Dyson Road and O'Sullivan Beach Road, the intersection of Bains Road and Piggot Range Road, the intersection of Dyson Road and Sheriffs Road, the intersection of South Road and Flaxmill Road at Morphett Vale, the intersection of Old South Road with Reynella Road and Grant Road at Old Reynella, and the intersection of South Road with Majors Road and Black Road at O'Halloran Hill. These are really important projects, because ensuring that our intersections are safe is critical, especially when people spend so many hours in their cars. This in fact builds on Commonwealth money that was made available by this federal government to the intersection of Main Road and Victor Harbor Road in McLaren Vale. This was a significantly dangerous black spot, but an investment of $12 million has gone towards making that road a lot safer, and that work has just finished.
But there is always more work that needs to be done, and my constituents have continued to raise a number of issues when it comes to roads. That includes the duplication of commercial roads—this is in the growing area of Seaford, Seaford Rise and Seaford Meadows, where there are many more cars on the road—and improving the bridge at Port Noarlunga, which takes people along the Dyson Road and Lonsdale Highway. The duplication of Majors Road is also something that many of my constituents have raised as an issue in ensuring that people in the Hallet Cove, Sheidow Park, Trott Park and O'Halloran Hill area can get around more easily. The condition of Beach Road and the duplication of Beach Road is something that many retailers as well as local residents have been particularly keen on, especially between the Southern Expressway and the main South Road, as well as the particular stretch between South Road from Aldinga to Seaford, and Old Coach Road. These are important projects and we need to continue to work to ensure they happen. (Time expired)
Veterans
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:42): This morning I would like to speak about the veterans community on the southern Gold Coast. I am very proud to say that we have a very large veterans community. We have four RSLs: the Tweed Heads-Coolangatta RSL, with President Joe Russell; the Currumbin-Palm Beach RSL with President Ron Workman OAM; the Burleigh Heads RSL, with President Chris Keating; and the Mudgeeraba Robina RSL, with President Jim Stathis.
Each RSL held services to mark Anzac Day, and I was very privileged to attend the dawn service at Currumbin, the mid-morning citizens service at Burleigh Heads and the sunset service at Mudgeeraba. This year, I was very humbled to be asked to lead the parade for the Currumbin dawn service with the president, Ron Workman, and I thank him so very much for that privilege. As always, the services were very moving, and each year the crowds are growing, which is excellent to see, particularly the many younger children coming along and participating in the parades and in the services.
Mudgeeraba is also home to the Mudgereeba Light Horse Museum, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Peter McLaughlin, Secretary Robert Clinch, Treasurer Laurie Wilson, First Vice-President Peter Atkinson and Second Vice-President Brian Bertwistle AM, as well as everyone associated with the museum for the wonderful work that they do. The museum offers a range of opportunities in line with the national history curriculum, and recently students from All Saints Anglican School visited the museum and participated in a range of activities including a raising-the-flag ceremony and getting up very close to the horses.
The Light Horse Museum have already told me that they will be putting in a submission to the Anzac Centenary grants program, and I encourage other such groups to put in submissions for grants for their projects to commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australian men and women in the First World War.
The McPherson Centenary of Anzac Committee has been established, and I thank Janelle Manders, the managing partner of HLB Mann Judd on the Gold Coast, Phil Roberts, senior lawyer and notary public of Roberts Law, Bren Milsom, secretary of Friends of Currumbin and one of our very well-respected community leaders, and Councillor Daphne McDonald for agreeing to be part of the committee and for their ongoing support to the southern Gold Coast and to our veteran community. Finally, I would like to confirm my ongoing support and commitment to deliver fair indexation for military superannuants. On 5 March 2012 and again 14 March 2013 the Leader of the Opposition personally recommitted the coalition to developing fair indexation for military superannuants. Under our plan the DFRB and DFRDB military superannuants aged 55 and over will have their superannuation pensions indexed in the same manner as age and service pensions.
Food Education
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (10:45): On Friday I had the great privilege of launching the government's policy Food in the Australian Curriculum, which is part and parcel of the National Food Plan. I was at Queanbeyan High School's agricultural production plot with Principal John Clark and representatives from AgriFood Skills Australia, Arthur Blewitt and Ben Stockwin of the Primary Industries Education Foundation, Matt Linnegar from the National Farmers Federation, a number of schools and associated educational providers. It was a great opportunity to promote what is a fantastic industry—the food and fibre industry—and to promote the fantastic and exciting careers that exist inside that industry, a most significant industry in our economy. An amount of $1.5 million has been committed at this stage to do several things. First and foremost, it is to help enhance and develop new resources for the curriculum, both online and hard copy materials. That will be done through DEEWR, and $500,000 has been committed to that process, which is designed to help teachers who want to highlight food and fibre in their curriculum and in their classrooms and to give them practical support to do that. One million dollars will be administered through DAFF and AgriFood Skills Australia, working with PIEF as well, to promote a number things—first of all, to support teachers and careers advisors to better understand the importance of food and fibre industries in Australia and the exciting careers associated with it.
There will be a particular campaign to support those teachers in the classroom. There will also be a program to support teachers in training. These people, like teachers, significantly affect the decisions of our young people, and we will be looking to trainee teachers and supporting them as well. There will also be a major program to make in-school presentations to over 8,000 students and 400 teachers. This is a model that we want to see replicated particularly throughout urban schools—rural and regional schools do not need to place a lot of emphasis on it, except to say that there are exciting careers in a fundamentally important part of our economy, the food, fibre and drinks industries.
Economy
WYATT ROY (Longman) (10:48): I wish to take this opportunity to speak about opportunity and hope and reward. The coalition stakes its reputation and raises its plan for a return to national prosperity on these three pillars—hope, reward and opportunity. Together they stand for creativity and ideas and an environment where those ideas are able to breathe and thrive free from big government and bureaucratic restraint; and then just reward for one's endeavour and hard work. If elected a coalition government will build layer upon layer of policy to bind this powerful three-way commitment into reality. We will build a strong, diversified economy with lower taxes which will deliver more jobs, higher real incomes and better services for all Australians. How many extra jobs? One million new jobs over the next five years and two million jobs within a decade.
A coalition government will immediately rescind the carbon tax which, by the way, increases on 1 July by five per cent. Abolishing the world's biggest carbon tax will remove the upward pressure on power costs that is hurting businesses and households alike. At the same time, we will keep the income tax cuts and fortnightly pension and benefit increases—retaining tax cuts without a carbon tax.
The coalition has real solutions for small business, which we know and respect as the engine room of Australia's economy. We will usher in a revitalised era of fewer regulations to encourage more productivity and greater rewards. We will cut red tape and green tape by a billion dollars every year.
A coalition government will build more modern infrastructure to get things moving, with a focus on our gridlocked roads and highways. We will direct hospital funding to where it is needed most—to front-line patient care. We will champion an education system which puts local communities, not bureaucrats, in the position to decide the direction of our schools.
The latest appearance of two vessels carrying 157 people takes the total number of illegal boats which have arrived on Labor's watch beyond 700. From day one of a coalition government, we would begin the work of re-securing our country's borders—reintroducing temporary protection visas, turning boats around where it is safe to do so and ensuring rigorous offshore processing.
With a return to prudent economic stewardship, we will rein in the federal Labor government's debt of almost $300 billion. We would chart a fairer, more responsible society underpinned by the notion of 'a hand-up, not a hand-out'. We will see smaller government and bigger citizens.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Association
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (10:52): I was very pleased to have been invited by Manzoor Qadir Khan, the President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of South Australia, to attend their exhibition of the Koran on Saturday, 27 April—a wonderful exhibition with versions of the Koran in as many languages as you can think of. I thank them for inviting me. In attendance on the day were the Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, Huei Van Le; members of the West Torrens council; and many people from the western suburbs. The exhibition was aimed at teaching people about the many great aspects of the Islamic faith and that peace is at the heart of the Ahmadiyya Muslim faith—it is about the pursuit of peace and knowledge. This came across on the day.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim community has long been persecuted by many authorities across many countries and regions around the world. They have made their way here—many as refugees and others as migrants—and to the UK, the US and many other places where they can practise their religion peacefully and freely. The main aim of the day was to show us that Islam is a religion of peace and a culture of peace and knowledge.
I was very pleased to hear from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on this day and to see the great things they are doing. Unfortunately, there are those around the world who are persecuted for practising this faith. In some cases around the world, violence is deployed against people of this faith. In Australia, we worship freely and as we please. It is unfortunate to see that there are still places around the world where people are not free to worship.
A couple of weeks after this event, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship visited my electorate and I set up a meeting between him and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association to talk about the many issues they face in different parts of the world. I would like to congratulate them for seeing a role for themselves in trying to educate the broader South Australian members of their faith and to increase our knowledge and understanding of one of the world's largest and oldest religions. I appreciate that they put on display some wonderful copies of the Koran in every possible language that you can think of. (Time expired)
Flynn Electorate: Medical Workforce
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (10:55): Today I rise to talk about the eligibility of doctors in Flynn to be registered for Medicare provider numbers, and specifically a situation that has arisen in the historic town of Mt Morgan, which is about half an hour west of Rockhampton.
Mt Morgan is home to what was once one of the world's biggest goldmines. The town currently has around 2,000 residents and further supports roughly another 2,000 people living in surrounding communities, such as Bouldercombe, Dululu, Wowan and other small towns. The town's needs are currently serviced by a new public hospital with one doctor and another private clinic; however, obtaining doctors is an ongoing problem. The one doctor in the hospital is there by himself and requires the services of the private clinic, which helps him out on occasion when he goes on leave.
My specific concern today is the problems confronting the CQ Family Practice with their efforts to employ a second doctor with a Medicare provider number to alleviate pressure on the local health network. Traditionally, there have always been two doctors in Mt Morgan registered with Medicare provider numbers. However, since the sad passing of one of the town's valued health professionals, the community has been left with only one. The CQ Family Practice has since managed to find a suitable doctor willing to work in the town—which is no small feat—however, they are unable to overcome what they have been advised are restrictions to Medicare provider numbers to overseas trained doctors, despite the fact that the town has always had two such registered doctors in place. This is clearly an anomaly which must be rectified as soon as possible. I am reliably informed that the doctor applying for a Medicare provider number is currently doing amazing work in the community; working not just at a family practice but also at the public hospital and in an aged-care facility in the nearby town of Gracemere.
I urgently call on the health minister to look into this situation so that the community of Mt Morgan and surrounds can be given back the services it has always enjoyed in the past and urgently needs right now. The 2nd of July 2013 is D-day for this situation in Mt Morgan. Obtaining adequate services in rural and regional areas is hard enough without these sorts of bureaucratic roadblocks that have become typical of a government obsessed with red tape.
Barton Highway
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (10:57): Last week there was a head-on crash on the Barton Highway, between Yass and Murrumbateman. The drivers of both cars were hospitalised with critical injuries, and the single-carriageway highway was closed in both directions for several hours.
Thankfully, this incident did not claim any lives; unlike a similar head-on collision in February this year in which one of the motorists, an ACT resident, was tragically killed.
The Barton Highway is a part of the national highway system and a key link between Canberra and the national grid, and it is unacceptable that it remains so dangerous. The risks are only going to increase as traffic volumes build, because the Yass valley area is one of the fastest growing regions in New South Wales. For example, Murrumbateman has grown from having a population of around 350 in 1984 to some 3,000 today.
Thanks to pressure from my predecessor, Bob McMullan; Labor's 2007 candidate for Hume, David Grant; and locals, including Murrumbateman resident John Gelling, Labor devoted $36 million to roadworks to address a notorious danger spot, the Gounyan curves. This 4.5 kilometre section of improvements removed seven bends. It was my pleasure to officially open the improved section in November 2011.
Many locals still believe the Barton Highway should be duplicated. The Commonwealth would be prepared to consider a proposal for this, but at present New South Wales has not even listed it as a priority, which is disappointing, given that the National Party's member for Burrinjuck serves in Barry O'Farrell's cabinet—yet she is unable to get the road onto the New South Wales state government short-list for urgent action.
A strong campaigner for duplication of the Barton highway is Labor candidate for Hume, Michael Pilbrow. Like many people in Hume, Michael regularly travels the Barton Highway to attend meetings in Canberra. He sometimes travels the road with his children and he knows the risk it brings. There is no more passionate champion of duplicating the Barton than Michael Pilbrow. Tomorrow, he will be meeting with Prime Minister Gillard along with Rowena Abbey, the Mayor of Yass; Geoff Ketle, the Mayor of Goulburn; Wendy Tuckerman, the Mayor of Booroowa; Chris Manchester, the Mayor of Harden; and John Shaw the Mayor of Upper Lachlan. The meeting will further push for the Barton Highway duplication, and a petition calling for duplication, initiated by the Mayor of Yass, will be presented to the Prime Minister.
Every day over 6,000 people commute from the Hume electorate to the ACT. As a Canberran, I applaud Michael Pilbrow's activism. He is a candidate who lives in the electorate, who is raising his family there and who is working hard to address local issues such as the Barton Highway duplication. He is a candidate who would serve the people of Hume well in this parliament. I wish him and the local mayors the best in their efforts for improving the safety of the Barton Highway, and I wish Michael Pilbrow my personal best in fighting this election.
BILLS
Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
To ensure that as many as others as possible can contribute to this debate, I refer to the comments made during my introductory speech.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:01): I second that motion and will take this opportunity to briefly explain my support. There is an urgent need for someone or something to oversee animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities because, as sure as hell, the current Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig and, regrettably, his department do not seem to be up to the job. How else to explain the repeated revelations of animal cruelty in Australia's live animal export industry since the ABC Four Corners program blew the whistle two years ago on the shocking animal abuse in Indonesian slaughter houses? Revelations are as widespread as at least in Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Pakistan and Turkey and probably in more places given the practical limitations on Animal Australia's investigations and the likelihood of much more abuse going on undiscovered and unreported. Revelations are as diverse as the cutting of tendons to immobilise animals, the butchering of animals still alive because of haste and incompetence, the burying of animals alive because that is one way of disposing of unwanted animals—so long as you do not give a toss about extreme cruelty—and the stabbing of eyes seemingly for fun.
Yes, I know the government reckons all is well now it has implemented that Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. The trouble is all of the cruelty in recent times has occurred despite ESCAS being up and running—the implication being that the system does not guarantee anything or in fact do much other than produce theatre for the government to hide behind.
Bizarrely, the more ESCAS is found to be an entirely inadequate animal welfare safeguard, the more the government trumpets the system's success on the basis that any breaches highlight the effectiveness of the oversight brought to bear by the system. The trouble is, the breaches are not being picked up by ESCAS but in almost every case by the brave souls in Animals Australia.
The current system does not work and there is genuinely an urgent need to put in place something that does. To that end, I feel that an independent office of animal welfare would be a good solution, not least because it would have an unambiguous mandate to ensure appropriate animal welfare standards are maintained. In other words, the office would not be conflicted like the department and its minister, who juggle what they see as the competing demands of industry profits and animal welfare—and invariably juggle them badly.
This matter does not reflect well on the Liberal and Labor parties because the live animal export industry went unchecked during the 11 years of the Howard government and next to nothing has been done to clean it up during the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments. In recent years there has been a concerted effort by some in the Labor Party to establish an independent office of animal welfare, which is obviously good thing. But apparently it is a move going nowhere fast, and that reflects very poorly on the Labor Party more broadly. I simply do not understand why the government and the alternative government are so weak on animal welfare. Surely there are enough men and women of good heart populating those parties to ensure animal welfare has a higher priority. But they are largely silenced, in another demonstration of how the party system in this country quashed independent thought at the expense of the public interest and, in this case, animal welfare. It is also another demonstration of the power of big business in this country and its ability to corrupt the development and implementation of good public policy.
Frankly, I believe strongly that the live animal export trade must be stopped and am heartened to know that one day it will be, the only question being when. But, so long as it does continue, at least this bill would provide some protection for the animals. I am proud to second this bill and I congratulate the Greens on progressing it. I can only hope that enough members in this place have the heart and backbone to support it. Those who do not either do not care much about animal welfare or care more about their political self-interest.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:05): Notwithstanding the genuine intentions and concerns behind the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 or, in fact, some of the emotive arguments of the member for Denison just now, the government will not be supporting this bill. The Gillard government takes animal welfare seriously, contrary to the claims of the member for Denison. The government works with state and territory governments and with industry and community groups to continue to improve animal welfare outcomes both here and overseas. In the area of live animal exports, the government has undertaken the most significant reforms ever made to this industry, placing animal welfare at the core of the trade. We made these reforms because it would create a more sustainable trade for Australian industry—so important to our economy—and because it was the right thing to do.
No government has done more to improve animal welfare in this sector than the Gillard government. The government has implemented the highest animal welfare standards for exported livestock anywhere in the world. The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS, puts animal welfare at the centre of the livestock export trade. It aims to ensure that Australian livestock are treated in line with international animal welfare standards. Internationally, Minister Joe Ludwig continues to actively engage within overseas forums to promote Australia's leadership in animal welfare standards. We have been a driving force in strong international animal welfare standards through the World Organisation for Animal Health. These standards cover land, sea and air transport and cattle production, as well as the slaughter of animals for human consumption.
Domestically, the Australian government takes a significant leadership role, including contributing to primary industry model codes and animal welfare guidelines. The government has already developed a number of policies to improve animal welfare standards, including the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines and the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. The welfare strategy, for example, outlines possible future directions in animal welfare in Australia. The Australian government has committed funding to this strategy through to 2014 and appointed a new advisory committee to assist the implementation of the strategy. The strategy is a national blueprint for sustainable improvements in animal welfare across all key animal use sectors, all key stakeholders and the broader community.
The Australian Labor Party national conference passed a resolution to establish an office of animal welfare. To begin that work, a special Labor caucus working group prepared a report on a model for an office. The working group considered what role an office would play in developing and reviewing domestic animal welfare standards, harmonising domestic laws, monitoring and reporting on surveillance and enforcement of domestic and live animal export regulation, and other appropriate activities. The report has now been finalised, and the government is now considering that report. The establishment of an independent office of animal welfare involves consideration of complex legal, constitutional and policy issues, and we make no apologies for taking the time to get our model right. Also, a final model will likely require broad public consultation, as it canvasses issues that will have wide public impact.
There are significant issues with the Greens' bill—for example, the question of the constitutional power to support the bill and, in particular, the functions of the CEO. For example, under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has no power to directly legislate for animal welfare. Some functions of the CEO, for example, reporting on the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy and considering academic and scientific research relevant to animal welfare, would need to be carefully considered to assess whether there was Constitutional power to support those functions, short of a referral power from state governments.
Under issue surrounds the departmental review of the functions of the CEO. The Greens bill before us is silent on any provisions as to how a review of department decisions would happen. There are no provisions explaining how the CEO and the office would be able to, for instance, receive information from the department, whether the CEO and office could compel the department or departmental officers to produce documents, invite submission from other parties, have power to enter and search premises and so on.
And, again, another question: what is the relationship of proposed review mechanisms in this bill to existing review mechanisms? For instance, this bill is silent on how the new review functions of the department would fit within existing review mechanisms. Decision of the department can already be reviewed by the Ombudsman and the ANAO. Decisions of the department are also subject to freedom of information applications and so on. There are numerous issues with the bill before the House, and until we can resolve these issues the government is unable to support this bill.
Mr HAASE (Durack) (11:11): I give my thanks to my learned friend opposite, the member for Braddon, for announcing the government's very intelligent view in opposing this bill, the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013. We in this place have to ask ourselves what the motivation is behind this particular bill being introduced. I am firmly of the view that the single reason for the introduction of this bill is, as they confess in part, to stamp out live export. But the stamping out of live export has serious ramifications. Anyone in this nation who has any awareness about the Northern aspects of this country understands that, with pastoral land, there is only one product that can be produced these days under the pastoral regulation act, and that is Bos indicus cattle for live export.
There are fanciful individuals who believe that we can install an abattoir, or a number of, across Northern Australia and slaughter, box and export boxed beef to places like the Middle East and Indonesia, but it is pure fantasy. We have a tiny proportion of those end customers, those end consumers, of those product that have refrigeration in their homes. Anyone who has seen frozen beef thawed out in a tropical situation without refrigeration would realise that the product becomes almost inedible in a very short period of time and that wet markets and local slaughter is the only solution.
So let's get away from this fanciful idea that the motivation might be for humane slaughter in Australian abattoirs. Let's get away from the idea that we can convince somebody that they ought to change their culture or their eating habits or suddenly install refrigeration across the Middle East and Indonesia. It is not going to happen. So, unless we want to certify the shutting down of a third of Australia's land mass and prevent the production of cattle, we need to put both feet on the ground and think with level heads about the future of a third of Australia.
The reality is that we have right now a combination of two dreadful situations. We have the disastrous decision two years ago that our relationship with Indonesia would be trashed, that we would take a political move that said to our Indonesian neighbours, 'We hold you to siege because we are offended by what has occurred in two of your abattoirs.' There was no logic to that kneejerk reaction of shutting down the export. If the motivation was to prevent cruelty to animals, what of the thousands of head of cattle that were in yards with no feed? If the idea of shutting down live export is to improve the living rate and reduce the death rate of animals, why would you not put them on a boat with feed and water and shelter rather than have them starve in paddocks?
That is what is happening today. We have the situation where the return on a beast in a market in Queensland is currently worth less than the freight to get the beast to market—therefore they are being left on country. The country is being stripped of available feed. We have a drought situation where we have no hope in the very near future of rain and subsequent feed. We have a second year's drop of calves now that ought to be viewing sale within eight to 10 months to those middle-eastern markets. That market has been trashed by the unmitigated circumstances that we have presented to Indonesia. The market has no hope of recovering in the short term—and yet we still have propositions being put forward that say we need another nail in the coffin of beef producers. It is inexcusable.
There is no rational thought behind this except of winning votes in metropolitan areas with a green view and appealing to green voters. They are people who probably believe that animals should not be eaten in the first place and that somehow, if they are to be eaten, maybe they voluntarily anaesthetise themselves and commit suicide to give us meats for consideration. (Time expired)
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:16): The purpose of this bill is to establish an independent office of animal welfare. In doing so it seeks to implement ALP policy adopted at the 2011 ALP National Conference under the guise that the government has failed to do it. I therefore welcome the member for Melbourne's support of ALP policy. It is encouraging that the Greens are doing that. I note, however, that in his remarks he at no point stated whether this matter was debated within the Greens party and whether it was formal Greens policy, although I can only assume it must be.
It begs the question whether the motion before the House is little more than an attempt to capital on extensive work ALP members in this place have carried out in driving the establishment of an independent office of animal welfare. The member for Melbourne quite rightly points out that the committee of Labor members of parliament, of which I have been a part, has done extensive work on this issue. The ALP caucus has now endorsed the proposal for the government to establish an independent office of animal welfare and I welcome the comments of the parliamentary secretary earlier on in this debate.
As is well known, Australian animal welfare is as much a matter for state governments as it is for the federal government. There is also in place a complex structure, between the federal and state governments, in overseeing animal welfare across Australia. Unravelling those existing arrangements is not simply a matter for the federal government. Any proposal by the federal government, if it is to act in isolation, is likely to cause overlap or conflict with arrangements and laws that are currently in place. Nor should the role of an independent office of animal welfare simply be confined to the export of live animals, albeit that is an area for which the federal government does have sole responsibility. However, appropriate standards in the welfare of live animals begins while they are still under state jurisdiction and before the animals are loaded onto ships for export.
Recently I was contacted by a group in Adelaide who have taken an interest in the live-export trade. The group, who refer to themselves as the Port Adelaide Monitors, have been closely monitoring the loading and exportation of live sheep from Port Adelaide. In a letter to me, the group raised several concerns about the cruel treatment of sheep prior to them leaving Australia, whilst they are at the loading docks and still under the jurisdiction of the state government. Those concerns clearly relate to matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the state government and yet they are part and parcel of the live-export trade.
It is clear that if an independent office of animal welfare is to be established, it needs to have appropriate authority to be effective. If it is going to have appropriate authority then we need to engage in discussions with the states and seek their cooperation. Having said that, it is important that this matter be progressed as quickly as possible because, as we have seen, cases of cruelty to live animals for export continue to be exposed. What is more, all of those cases and all of that cruelty is both unnecessary and avoidable.
I have previously made the point that once animals leave Australia we lose control of their fate. The government's implementation of the export supply chain assurance system, which ensures animals are tracked and monitored, is making a difference to export animal welfare because it places responsibility for the care of those animals onto the exporter. But it is not foolproof and never will be, as we saw with the sheep that were redirected from Bahrain to Pakistan. I note with interest that, whilst the industry claims that the exports are important to the livestock industry, the fact is that export numbers of live animals and values have been declining over the last decade while simultaneously the export of chilled meats from Australia has been increasing. Cattle and sheep growers know that the future lies in the export of chilled meat. It is less risky and easier to manage because the processing is all carried out in Australia. Importantly, processing in Australia eliminates the cruelty associated with the live export trade. That is what we should be encouraging growers to focus on.
With respect to this legislation, as the parliamentary secretary has quite rightly pointed out, if it is going to be effective we need to get it right. The legislation does not tell me which minister the new office will answer to, nor does it tell me specifically what powers it will have to ensure that animal cruelty is in fact stamped out. There is a whole range of matters that I know the minister is looking at. It is important that we do that and it is important that we get the office right if it is to be effective. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:21): This policy is typical of the Greens, who love red tape. Moreover, they love the green tape. They love bureaucracy, they love regulation, but they do not love farmers. It is designed to make farming more costly, and haven't we seen how much more expensive farming is with the carbon tax that the Greens also supported. It is designed to shut down the industry of live cattle exports, live animal exports, but it does nothing to improve animal welfare.
With me in the chamber is the shadow minister for agriculture and perhaps more importantly food security. North of Australia is Indonesia, 240 or so million people who are going to lack protein, going to lack Australian meat, if you shut down our live cattle exports. The shadow minister knows that. I have heard him talking ad nauseam about the importance of the live cattle export industry. He and I were in Rockhampton just recently where one cattle farmer bemoaned the fact that steers were selling for just $20 a head in Longreach, and that is shameful. It is because of the ban brought about by a knee-jerk reaction by Prime Minister more intent on just keeping her job than on good public policy. The Four Corners program shut down the entire live cattle export industry, and what did we see? We saw so many Aboriginal stockman put out of work. They walked off from their jobs. Who knows whether they will ever get their jobs back again? We saw cattle which were then too old and too heavy to be exported and in some cases were being shot. Talk about animal welfare. That goes against the whole meaning of any sort of animal welfare. Farmers do not want to have to shoot their animals but they want to survive. They need livelihoods. The shadow minister knows that. He knows how important it is to keep our live cattle export industry going.
Nobody likes animal cruelty, least of all the shadow minister, least of all the Nationals, but we do care for regional Australia. We want our farmers to get a fair price for their livestock. We also want to see those livestock treated properly. We do not want them to be sent to abattoirs which are going to treat them inhumanely, and that is why we have provisions in place. That is why the cattle industry's Alison Penfold, a person who is absolutely mindful of the importance of making sure that our exports remain viable, told me only on Friday of the importance of Australia making sure that we have good welfare standards. But this bill does nothing for that. As John Cobb said to me, this bill is an affront to our live exporters and to our beef industry, which is the only industry out of 109 countries which support live exports which invests in animal welfare in destination countries. We need to build to provide our meat to those countries, whether it is Indonesia, whether it is the Middle East—wherever it is we need to make sure that we keep those markets open. The situation we have at the moment is that the price for cattle has gone down right throughout the country, certainly in the Riverina where one of the businesses, Byrne Trailers, has lost a lot of money, tens of thousands of dollars, because the orders have stopped for their stock crates. This is an affront to farmers.
I notice that the member for Page was on the speaking list, but I cannot see her in the chamber. She wanted to phase out, stop, the live cattle export trade. I am just glad that the Nationals have a candidate in Page, Kevin Hogan, who understands the cattle industry—indeed, he is a cattle farmer himself. I am sure that if he is lucky enough to be elected as the next member for Page, and I hope that is the case, he will bring common sense and reason to this debate.
This bill is about supporting the extremist element, the people who want to shut down animal production. We had a party who failed to ban live exports because it was bad public policy. I heard the member for Melbourne last week, in an adjournment debate, talk about the number of helicopters flying over his electorate at night and during the day. Talk about a first world problem! We have people in the electorates of Calare and Riverina who do not know where their next profit is going to come from, who do not know where their next pay packet is going to come from, because the live cattle trade export ban—that absolute fiasco—has caused them much financial stress and caused their farm profitability much harm.
I do not recommend this bill, and I hope it gets rejected as it should.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (11:26): I rise to speak on the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 introduced by the member for Melbourne. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear all of the debate prior to rising to speak, apart from hearing the last bit of the member for Riverina's contribution. I would not have thought there would be many cattle exported live overseas from Riverina electorate, but I hope to stand corrected. I would have thought they would not be viable at all. I know, as a Queenslander and someone connected with this topic, that there is only a certain market.
I want to go on the record early and say that, if I had my way, I would like all cattle from production in Australia to be slaughtered in Australian abattoirs. That would be my wish because that would be value-adding and protecting Australian jobs, and we would have control over the standards. I recognise the contribution of the meat industry, employees and the cattle industry through having great standards. The reality is that it is not economically viable for cattle in north-west Australia to be slaughtered in a Melbourne abattoirs or in a Queensland abattoirs. Even if there were sufficient labour in north-west Australia there would not be a viable industry. If I had my wish, all cattle produced in Australia would be slaughtered in Australia, but the economic reality is that that is not viable.
This bill put forward by the member for Melbourne seeks to establish the Independent Office of Animal Welfare with the appointment of a CEO by the minister, and sets out a range of reporting and monitoring functions around Commonwealth legislation and standard-setting principally associated with the export of livestock. This is a classic opportunity of putting attention on the member for Melbourne's concerns through an issue that is already taking place.
I have a prop here, which I will refer to briefly, Deputy Speaker, and it is the Constitution. The reality is that the Constitution does not provide for Minister Ludwig to make such a decision. In terms of authority over what is exported we do have a head of power where the minister can have some say. In terms of an Independent Office of Animal Welfare, in terms of looking at what goes on in Australia, the reality is that we are a Federation and we need the state ministers, the state premiers, to come together to refer powers to any federal department. I commend the member for Melbourne for some aspects of this legislation, but it is ignoring the fact that we are a Federation and it is also ignoring the economic reality of cattle in north-west Australia, even cattle in some northern parts of Queensland and certainly in the Northern Territory. As well, I should particularly mention the significant Indigenous population who rely on jobs in this industry. It will never be economically viable to put those cattle on a truck and send them to Dinmore, in Brisbane. I am sorry; I wish that were not the case. Those days are gone. I know that we are taking steps to establish abattoirs in the Northern Territory, which might facilitate more cattle being slaughtered in Australian abattoirs, but even then we will never be able to slaughter in Australia all the cattle being turned off.
I understand the complex legal, constitutional and policy issues associated with an independent office of animal welfare. I think we will soon have an announcement from the Labor government about something that will go some way to that. But it would always have to be a cooperative arrangement. The sort of knee-jerk populism of saying, 'This should be banned,' whenever one animal is shown to be slaughtered is not realistic. One of my first jobs was working in a butcher shop, and we had a little abattoir in my hometown. I have always known that occasionally things go wrong, even in abattoirs with the best standards. But this banning would not work in the long run at all, because the reality is that cattle in north-west Australia will always need to be exported. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Christian Assyrians in Iraq
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) Christian Assyrians, a minority religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds;
(b) on 31 October 2010, 58 Christian Assyrians were killed in an attack on a church in Baghdad, in an act of violent extremism targeting this minority group;
(c) Christian Assyrians are actively discriminated against by having their land illegally occupied and transferred to squatters;
(d) 600,000 Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and
(e) Assyrians remaining in Iraq are denied many basic human rights and subject to ongoing harassment, intimidation and discrimination;
(2) condemns violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds wherever it may be found, including in Iraq; and
(3) calls upon the Australian Government to raise the significant human rights concerns of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi Government.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (11:31): This is not the first occasion on which I have spoken in this chamber on the plight of Christians in the Middle East. I said on the last occasion, in May 2011, that for my own purposes I have often travelled widely in the Middle East. One of the discussions I had was with the Middle East Council of Churches, because already there were numerous Christians who had fled, many from Iraq, and had settled in Syria and Jordan seeking sanctuary. Many of course were seeking to move further afield. In my discussions with the Middle East Council of Churches it made very strongly the points that Christians have been resident in the Middle East for some 2,000 years and that it did not want, essentially, to preside over Christians being driven out of the Middle East.
This motion is designed to focus on those issues. It is not the only motion that will come before the parliament—the government seems to have found reason to talk about these issues again—but I think it is very important to understand that Christian Assyrians, who are a religious and racial minority group in Iraq, have been subjected to ongoing violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination. They have been discriminated against in many ways, including by the illegal occupation and transfer of their land. There are reports that some 600,000 Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, and many of those have settled in Australia. The Assyrians remaining are subjected to harassment, intimidation and discrimination. This motion condemns that violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination and calls upon the government to raise these issues with the Iraqi government.
I do not know that these matters are pursued by government but I do know that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. When I hear suggestions that we should simply refer to reports that raise these matters I think it ignores the responsibility that government itself has to protect its own citizens and to ensure that they are not discriminated against.
I think the plight of the Assyrians, particularly in Iraq—but it is not only in Iraq; it is now occurring in Syria with the violence that is occurring there and it is also happening in other areas where there are Kurdish populations. The Assyrians face very considerable discrimination . It is not just the illegal occupation of their land and the transferring of it to squatters—which is the subject of quite comprehensive reporting, and I do not think can be put aside lightly—it also includes many attacks on Christians that have occurred and continue to occur in Iraq now. Iraq has its difficulties, but I think there is a responsibility to ensure that the people are able to get full information about what their government is doing and how they are seeking to deal with this issues.
The point I was making was that the Assyrians are unique. They have been predominantly Christian in the regions in which they live. They face discrimination which first started under the regime of Saddam Hussein and the details that I mentioned that I would give include in January of 2008, Epiphany Day, five Assyrian churches, one Armenian church and monasteries in Mosul and Baghdad were attacked with car bombs in a coordinated fashion. On 31 October 2010 at the Sayidat-al-Najat cathedral in Baghdad 58 people were left dead. There were eight attacks on churches in 2011 with more than 35 civilians and security forces wounded. These attacks were used as a tool to suppress the Christian religion in my view.
Kidnapping for ransom has been a significant problem with six abductions reported in 2011, largely around Kirkuk. Some were freed when ransoms were paid but other stories were not so positive. Ashur Issa Jacob was kidnapped by al-Qaida operatives—$61,500 was made in ransom but his body was found later mutilated in Kirkuk, including near decapitation, his eyes were gouged out and there were dog bites on his body.
These are the sorts of experiences that many have seen, and the threats and harassment which are part of daily life are very significant . It is my view that the Australian government needs to be actively pursuing these matters with the Iraqi government. We do not blame them for what is happening but we expect that they would be using all of their efforts to ensure the protection of their people. That is the responsibility of all governments and it is not a matter of treating these matters lightly when so many people have fled. The massive movement of the Assyrian population has meant that it is now about half what it was, and many of those people who continue to live there have been internally displaced.
When they are internally displaced they face very significant problems. There are hostilities. They find it difficult to find work and employment. They find it difficult to get services. They find it difficult to be able to practise their religion. These are matters that are well known when they do occur but in Iraq, in particular, they are significant and continue to be significant.
The purpose of the motion I have moved is to bring these matters to notice to ensure that Australians are aware of the plight of Assyrians and to know what is being experienced by the families of many of their neighbours who live here in Australia. I make the point again that we need to be generous, as we have been over decades, in assisting those people who are refugees and who are forced to flee and we ought to be providing for placements in our own programs to assist.
The Special Humanitarian Program has always been one that has been available for that purpose. Previously, when I was minister, I was pleased that we were able to accommodate many Assyrian Christians in those programs. I regret that today the possibility of being able to assist is so much more limited because of the failure to be able to adequately manage our borders. That has meant that the program places are assigned to others who come and pay people smugglers and those who have real needs end up being very significantly disadvantaged.
I make the point, as I did earlier, that there are some who would suggest that the Australian government has done all that it should and that we should support their efforts. Let me make it clear: I think there is a lot more advocacy to be done. Governments do have a responsibility to protect their own people and I think the Assyrian Christians are entitled to that protection, whether they are in Iraq, whether they are in Syria or whether they are in Turkey.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports—Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts) (11:41): I would like to make some comments about the grave situation faced by the Assyrian Christian minority in Iraq. I genuinely share the excellent motion and sentiments of the member for Berowra.
The Assyrians are an ethnic minority who have lived in Iraq since before the Arab conquest. The Assyrian Christians, officially known as the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, are an ancient Christian denomination. They trace their origins back to the Apostle Thomas who is believed to have visited Babylon and founded a church there. The Assyrian Christians are not affiliated with any other denomination although they do have friendly relations with the Vatican, the Greek and Syrian Orthodox churches and the Chaldean Catholics. At one time the church had millions of followers in the wide arc from Egypt to China and India.
The Assyrians, along with the Armenians, suffered greatly at the hands of the Ottoman regime during World War I with somewhere between 250,000 and 700,000 killed. Today, the church has been reduced to a following of about half a million, concentrated in northern Iraq. It has diaspora churches in many countries, including the United States and Australia. During the days of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq, the Assyrians, like other Christian minorities, enjoyed a certain amount of protection from the secular state although they suffered from the same political repression and restrictions on freedom of speech as other Iraqis. I genuinely share the view of the member for Berowra that it is the duty of the modern state of Iraq to protect its religious minorities. It is something that those of us in the rest of the world look at very ominously in the Middle East—the apparent driving out of Christians of all denominations from that region. In 1987 there were 1.4 million Christians officially recorded in Iraq. Today there are about 400,000.
The fall of Saddam brought many benefits to Iraq but unfortunately it unleashed the forces of religious hatred, particularly between the Shi'a and Sunni aspects of Islam, and also between the Arab majority and the Kurdish areas in the north. Iraq's Christians have been amongst the many victims of this sectarian conflict which has been deliberately exploited by al-Qaeda and other similar extremists as well as by elements within the Shi'a dominated government of Iraq.
Since 2003, Assyrian Christians in Iraq have been the targets of numerous fatal attacks by Islamist groups. Over 65 churches have been bombed and destroyed, hundreds of Christians have been killed and there has been a wave of kidnappings targeting Christian children and teenagers. As a result, there has been a huge exodus of Christians, including Assyrians from Iraq. The member for Berowra said the figure was something close to 600,000.
Generally, we view the Arab Spring uprisings over the last three years as a natural response to repression by the dictators and monarchs who have rules these countries for so long. I travelled to Tunisia and met the so-called moderate Islamist party, led by Rachid Ghannouchi. I hope those in Tunisia stay true to their word of cleaving to democracy. In other places, such as Egypt, the Arab Spring has brought to power Islamist regimes which do not seem to protect their Christian minorities. I have spoken out many times previously about the ill-treatment of the Coptic church in Egypt. I pay tribute to the former minister for resources, the member for Batman, Mr Ferguson, who led a delegation with me that met some of the local Coptic holy fathers, together with Bishop Suriel, in Melbourne after some of the particularly egregious attacks on the Christian community in Egypt.
Sadly, Assyrian Christians seem to be facing persecution in the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. It has been reported that Assyrians in various villages have been illegally forced out of their homes and off their land. They are being constantly pressured to convert to Islam in exchange for guarantees of their safety from the Kurdish Muslim majority. Islamic militancy in Iraqi Kurdistan is growing and it is the minorities who suffer the most. This is particularly sad for democrats across the world who admired Kurdistan as a place slightly independent of Iraq—even before the time of Saddam Hussein—and a place where there is economic growth and progress. It is a shame that its Christian minority is not being treated better.
In Baghdad, Mosul and Nineveh, there have been repeated home invasions, beatings and murders of Christians by Islamist gunmen. Christian families have been forced to flee for their lives and have been robbed of their property. There have been numerous attacks on Assyrian Christians in both northern Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan over the past three years. In the disputed city of Kirkuk, where ethnic and religious tensions are very acute, Christians were forbidden to celebrate Christmas in 2010—surely that is something that the government of Iraq could have taken a stronger stand on—on the grounds that Christmas would be an insult to the Muslim majority. In Kirkuk, in 2011, so-called insurgents killed and mutilated a Christian construction worker whom they had kidnapped over the weekend and had demanded $100,000 in ransom for. Human Rights Watch has warned that northern Iraq's minority Christians are the collateral victims of a conflict between Arabs and Kurds over control of disputed oil-rich provinces in northern Iraq.
In one of the worst incidents, in October 2010 in Baghdad, Islamist terrorists held about 120 Christians hostage for nearly four hours in a church before security forces stormed the building. That is the incident that the member for Berowra was referring to, where the shootout left 58 people dead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled the country since 2003. Many of them went to Syria, but, now that civil war has broken out there, they are no longer safe. They are not welcome in Turkey, although many have gone there anyway. Many have found their way to the West. We know that many of them are already in Jordan before the current wave of Syrian refugees.
In the 1940s and 1950s, a million Jews were expelled from the Arab countries and from Iran. They were relatively lucky. They had a place in the Jewish state of Israel ready and willing to take them in. Today there are still millions of Christians in the Arab world, with perhaps as many as 15 million in Egypt. Their position is increasingly insecure as the wave of Islamist militancy spreads across the region. If they are driven out of the countries where they have lived for centuries, who will take them in?
It is incumbent upon all of us in Western societies who believe in religious freedom to speak up and make their voices heard on behalf of the persecuted Christians of the Middle East, whether it is in Egypt or Iraq; whether it is Syrian Christians in the north of Iraq, or anywhere. The situation of an ancient religious minority, with their very interesting traditions, their long-held traditions, their centuries-held traditions, is not something that the rest of the world should allow to be abandoned.
When the famous Buddhas of Bamiyan were blown up by the Islamists in Afghanistan, the whole world was offended. When France led an expedition in Mali to expel the Islamists from that country, to preserve the Muslim shrines and artefacts of Timbuktu, the world cheered the French, and Australia was very strong in France's support, giving $10 million in aid. I know the ambassador of Mali flew specially from Tokyo—we do not have a resident Malinese ambassador in Australia—to thank Australia for its participation in saving his country. The Malinese ambassador was a Muslim and represented the Muslim moderate majority in that country.
It is incumbent on all of us in Western societies to speak up for religious freedom in the Middle East. Australia played a major role in the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. It is therefore our right as a country to ask our Iraqi friends, the Iraqi government, to take measures to preserve the safety of the Assyrian Christian minority and other Christians in Iraq.
I particularly express my disappointment to Kurdish friends in the north of Iraq, whom many people in democratic movements across the world have held in such high esteem, that this persecution of the Christian minority in the north of Iraq continues to take place. I call on the Kurdish political parties and the Kurdish autonomous area in the north of Iraq to pay higher attention to and preserve the religious freedom of the Christian minority in the north of Iraq.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:52): I rise to support this motion moved by the member for Berowra. I commend him on his leadership on Assyrian issues over many years in this House. I also acknowledge in the gallery today Hermiz Shahen, David David and other members of the Assyrian community. Thank you for being here. The motion is:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) Christian Assyrians, a minority religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds;
(b) on 31 October 2010, 58 Christian Assyrians were killed in an attack on a church in Baghdad, in an act of violent extremism targeting this minority group;
(c) Christian Assyrians are actively discriminated against by having their land illegally occupied and transferred to squatters;
(d) 600,000 Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and
(e) Assyrians remaining in Iraq are denied many basic human rights and subject to ongoing harassment, intimidation and discrimination;
(2) condemns violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds wherever it may be found, including in Iraq; and
(3) calls upon the Australian Government to raise the significant human rights concerns of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi Government.
Assyrians are the indigenous people of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They have a history that spans over 7,000 years. Today's Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient Assyrian Empire, which was once our earliest civilisation. The majority of the Assyrian population had converted to Christianity by the second century, giving them a legitimate claim to being the first Christian nation in history. However, over the centuries, under Islamic rule and its attendant repressions, the number of Christians has been significantly reduced in the Middle East. In 1900, Christians made up 25 per cent of the population of the Middle East. By 2000, that was down to less than five per cent. Then came the Iraq War.
Undoubtedly, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. He led his people into senseless wars—the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait—wars which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. He used chemical weapons against his own people. However, I recall a question asked at the time of the Gulf War: was Iraq the way it was because of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of the Iraq? History now answers that question and it seems there is truth in both, for Saddam and his Ba'athist regime did at least keep the genie of Islamic militancy in the bottle. However, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Assyrians in Iraq have been the targets of numerous fatal attacks by Islamic terrorist groups and the new Iraq, from time to time in its liberation, has witnessed a huge exodus of Christians. In the decade since the Gulf War, more than half of Iraq's Christians have fled to refugee camps in Syria or Jordan, reducing Iraq's pre-war population of Assyrians from 1,000,000 to now around 400,000. Those remaining are experiencing one of the most pressing humanitarian crises on our planet, suffering systematic persecution which largely goes unreported in the mainstream media.
Within the last 12 years, over 65 churches have been bombed and many destroyed, and hundreds of Christians have been killed. In 2010, just a few months after the US combat troops left, militants associated with Al Qaeda, in a bloody siege of Our Lady of Deliverance Church in Baghdad, killed 58 people, including two priests, and wounded 78 more. In the attack, as detailed in the New York Times, one of the priests, Father Sabih, was pushed to the ground as he grabbed his crucifix and pleaded with the gunmen to spare his worshippers. He was then killed, his body riddled with bullets.
Today on its ancestral soil all that is left of the world's oldest Christian nation is a desperate minority. A culture which has survived centuries of hardship now stands on the verge of disappearing completely. We must use our voice on the United Nations Security Council to speak out on these issues. (Time expired)
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:57): I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for Berowra and to add my voice to the condemnation of the continued persecution of Christian Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs in Iraq. I have spoken about this issue in the House on many previous occasions in the past expressing my concern at the ongoing human rights abuse of minority groups in Iraq but also in the broader Middle East. On this occasion, I would like to mention the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt and to speak of the Christian community now facing intense pressure in Syria. As ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs have been doubly targeted during the ethnic and sectarian civil war which has gripped Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. Christian Iraqis form a disproportionate part of the millions of Iraqis displaced by the war. They have suffered from killings, bombings, kidnappings, torture, harassment, forced conversions and dispossessions. I thank the members who have spoken before me and who have detailed the accounts of the atrocities.
My seat of Calwell is home to one of the largest constituencies of Iraqi Christians in Australia. They are among the thousands who have fled Iraq as refugees, so acts of violent extremism, and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds are matters that deeply distress members of the Assyrian, Syriac and Chaldean communities in my electorate. Their faith is unyielding and freedom to practice without fear of persecution is paramount. In fact, such is the pious devotion to their faith and church that this Christian community has already built very strong roots in my electorate.
Calwell is home to the Chaldean Cathedral of Our Lady Guardian of Plants, the St Mary's Ancient Church of the East, the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East and the Holy Spirit Syriac Catholic Church. Church attendance during mass is the highest of any Christian community in Australia. I have received much representation in my electorate from members of the Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac communities. Of the many issues we discuss—ranging from immigration, refugees and family reunion to degree and qualification recognition—the one issue closest to their hearts and minds is the continued instability in Iraq and the persecution of their Christian brothers and sisters.
The Pope of the Syriac Catholic Church, Pope Joseph, recently visited Melbourne from Lebanon. He led the mass at our local Holy Spirit Catholic Church where he ordained five new deacons in a community made up of about 100 families. I use this as an example to show the depth of belief and reverence amongst this community.
On 12 May this year I also had the great privilege of an audience with the patriarch of the Chaldean Church, His Beatitude, Mar Louis Raphael I Sako, during his visit to Our Lady Guardian of Plants Chaldean parish in Campbellfield. My discussions with His Beatitude were wide ranging and very illuminating. Of course they centred on the plight of Christians in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but the patriarch was also keen to discuss the experience and integration progress of his flock here in Australia. He noted his delight at their progress and stressed his desire that they integrate successfully in their new home. They bring with them a profound faith that can be instructive to other Christians, myself included, as I thoroughly enjoy attending their masses.
His Beatitude also expressed his deep concern about the forced exodus of Christians from Iraq and made specific reference to the 'brain drain' effect it would have on Iraq's future development given that Christian Iraqis are the most educated of the community and are desperately needed in order to rebuild this broken and tragic country. In voicing concern about the overall future presence of Christians in Iraq as numbers dwindle because of the instability, persecution and the displacement, a new threat is emerging, one that sees a possible disappearance of Christians altogether, a matter that even Muslim Iraqis, according to the patriarch, are very concerned about because it could throw Iraq into the hands of extremists, thereby destroying any chance of a safer and stronger country. It is for this reason that this motion we are debating here today is very important.
The irony of the patriarch's observations did not escape me. As the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I recently tabled a report which noted the difficulty the Iraqi community were having with recognition of their skills and qualifications here in Australia, yet His Beatitude was lamenting the loss to Iraq of the highly skilled Christian population, who, subsequently when coming to Australia struggle to use their skills and educational qualifications. (Time expired)
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:02): I want to commend the member for Berowra for an excellent motion in relation to this matter and, indeed, all members of this place, including the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Hughes, for excellent contributions in recognition of this serious issue and problem. I think it is a good idea for us in this place to call for the Australian government to raise the ongoing concern of significant human rights abuses of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi government of today. Given the record of Australia in assisting Iraq and the people of Iraq with their needs over the years, it is a good chance for us to represent our ongoing concern about the serious situation that minority Christian groups are facing in Iraq today.
I also want to say that it has been my privilege to work with the Australian Assyrian community and get to meet and get to know many of its fantastic members and the contribution that they are making. We certainly see in Australia today people entering parliaments in this country like Ninos Khoshaba but also a good friend of mine in the New South Wales Liberal Party, Andy Rohan, the member for Smithfield, who is doing a fantastic job as an Australian with Assyrian background. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of His Beatitude Mar Meelis Zaia, the Archbishop of the Assyrian Church of the East, Australia and New Zealand, who has received the Order of Australia medal in recognition of this contribution.
It is an ongoing concern that even recently, in May this year, we have seen minority Christians amongst those suffering. Up to 140 people died in four consecutive days of violence in Iraq. This ongoing concern is added to records and reports of up to 1,000 Assyrian Christians having lost their lives in the time since the fall of Saddam Hussein. That is a very sobering statistic, indeed. It is sobering to read that if these attacks take place in a Christian neighbourhood or a Christian village you can assume that they are targeted especially against the Christian populations of the neighbourhoods and villages. That is, these attacks are deliberately targeting Christians in Iraq today.
When you read the Human rights report on Assyrians in Iraq: The exodus from Iraq, put out by the Assyria Council of Europe, you find some really sobering information about what is going on and why we need a motion such as this today. The member for Berowra has highlighted the 600,000 Christian Assyrians who have now fled Iraq in fear of this ongoing persecution and human rights abuses. We have seen saw the huge exodus of minorities and continuing threats and violence. While this report notes a general decrease in violence, that is coming from a level which is completely unacceptable to any civilised country.
Assyrians and other minorities are constantly experiencing targeted violence, threats and intimidation. It is disturbing to read that, because of the continuing displacement processes, many Assyrians are now not able to sustain themselves, lacking a regular source of income, opportunities and education, and neither the central Iraqi government nor the Kurdistan regional government is adequately dealing with these problems.
The purpose of this motion is to highlight the dozens of attacks and the revealed patterns of structural discrimination against Assyrians and their organisations during the past few years. We have seen continuing violence. We have seen people wounded. We have seen people killed. We have seen people abducted. We have seen the bombing of churches and parishioners being killed. All of these things, in the world's eyes, are completely unacceptable in any country, particularly in a new state which has been supported by so many countries, like Australia.
We learnt from the report that since 2011 a considerable movement amongst Assyrians has been taking place because of the highly dangerous situation. Women have been especially targeted and have been forced to take on the garments of a faith they do not support. Assyrian women, in particular, face constant threats of physical violence and danger. This is completely unacceptable to the international community and unacceptable to Australia. It is unacceptable that the marginalisation of minorities is partly incorporated into the new constitution of Iraq. I have to say that we do not want to see institutionalised discrimination in the constitution of any new country that is supported by a free society like Australia.
It is vital that we pass this motion today and recognise that the Christian Assyrian community, a minority religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence and intimidation, that the contribution that they are making here in Australia is to be admired and praised and that we need to do more to raise this issue with the Iraqi government to ensure that all minorities within Iraq are treated fairly.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (12:07): I also join in strongly commending the member for Berowra in putting this matter before the parliament today, and I welcome representatives from the Assyrian Universal Alliance, Mr David David, Hermiz Shahen and all the members who are here today. As members would be aware, I have spoken on this matter many a time in this parliament. I agree with the member for Berowra that there is an urgent need for a compassionate response by the international community to what is truly a humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
The member for Berowra quoted a figure of 600,000 people who have left Iraq since 2003. I would like to quote a figure provided to me by the Catholic Church. They say that one million indigenous Assyrians, Mandaeans and other Christian minorities have exited Iraq since 2003. They have been forced to flee and have been subjected to forced conversions and physical violence. According to the Catholic Church, over a million people have left and they will not be returning to Iraq.
Australia was a willing participant in the military engagement in 2003 that saw a dramatic restructuring of the infrastructure and forces that operated to influence the outcomes within Iraq. The invasion resulted in a dramatic escalation of disputes between the Sunni and the Shia Iraqis, with the indigenous Assyrians and Christian minorities very much caught in the middle. Over the last 10 years, over a million indigenous Assyrians, Mandaeans and other Christian minorities have been forced to flee the region—a region which they have called home for the last 2,000 years. These Aramaic speakers—the same language that was spoken by Jesus Christ—were in that region well before the British and the French decided to put lines on a map and call it Iraq. These people were truly indigenous to that region and that has now failed to be accepted.
Back in 2010 I spoke of the horrific attack at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, where 56 Christians were murdered. People often go to churches, temples, mosques or whatever place of worship it may be to find spirituality, safety and solace. It is pretty heartbreaking to imagine families—young people with children—being murdered at what they would have considered to be the most sacred of locations, their place of worship. The location of the attacks sends a very strong message about religion being the focal point of violence and persecution in the Middle East today. The attack was carried out by members of the Islamic State of Iraq, a group aligned to al-Qaeda, who have made it their mission to rid Iraq of Christian minority groups, including Assyrians, and therefore Christians in Iraq—men, women and children—have been made legitimate targets by these radical organisations.
The report entitled Incipient genocide: the ethnic cleansing of Assyrians in Iraq outlines the detail of systemic and persistent persecution of Assyrians in Iraq, including these gruesome murders, extortion and violence. Looking at the images of the victims, including the children, and putting a face to each of these tragic stories is truly confronting and sobering. Assyrians and other religious minorities in Iraq face the most dire circumstances of any group of people in the modern world. Australia is a nation that is fortunate enough to enjoy political and economic stability and, as a leading member of the global community, has a responsibility to do all it can to improve these conditions. However, we have an additional moral responsibility to assist in Iraq because we were part of the coalition of the willing, which set in motion the chain of events resulting in the persecution of religious minorities in Iraq. Once again, I thank the member for Berowra for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. (Time expired)
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:12): I rise to add my contribution to the very excellent contributions made both across the chamber and on this side of the chamber on this wonderful motion put forward by my good friend and colleague the member for Berowra. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Tragically, in some parts of the world this fundamental right is not observed. It is not being observed in the case of the Assyrian people in Iraq and Syria. The Assyrian people have a proud and rich history that spans more than 5,000 years. Their foundations can be found in the Middle East—largely Iraq Syria—and they are a people of predominantly Christian faith. There is an estimated population of around three million Assyrians worldwide, with one million in Iraq and around 700,000 in Syria. In what can only be described as a cruel twist of fate, it is because of their rich culture that the Assyrians have faced violence, intimidation and harassment and discrimination.
Under Saddam Hussein they faced significant persecution. Unfortunately, since the removal of that dictator the situation has not markedly improved. On 31 October 2010, 58 Assyrian Christians were killed in a coordinated and deliberate attack on a church designed to terrorise and intimidate those Assyrians and their families. They were targeted on the basis of their religion. There have been, unfortunately, many other forms of persecution and violence. For the record of this House, I place on the record a number of those examples. On Epiphany Day, 6 January 2008, five Assyrian churches, one Armenian church and monasteries in Mosul and Baghdad were attacked with car bombs. In 2011, 35 civilians and members of security forces were wounded in eight separate attacks. Kidnapping and ransom have become significant tools of terror, with six abductions reported in 2011, largely around Kirkuk. Some were freed by ransom and others were killed. Threats and low-level harassment are expected as part of everyday life, including now threats by text message. Work opportunities and other basic human rights are also denied, especially in the Kurdish region.
The result of this persecution has been the dislocation of around 600,000 Assyrian Christians in Iraq alone. Happily for us in Australia, many Assyrians have chosen to make Australia their home and make a very valuable and worthwhile contribution.
The Arab Spring, which promised so much in the way of hope and expectation, already seems to be turning to winter, and there is ever-increasing concern in the Middle East that the religious freedoms of the minority Christian and Jewish people are being diminished over time. Those of us with a voice must remain ever vigilant to ensure that we speak out against violence, harassment and intimidation. We have a duty. We call upon the Australian government to raise the significant human rights concerns of the Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi government. I commend this excellent motion to the House.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (12:16): I have pleasure in joining with the member for Berowra in relation to this matter. He has a very consistent record in regard to human rights around the globe. The point I want to make is that this is about universality of human rights; it is not about particular religions in particular countries. Tonight I and the member for Melbourne Ports will speak on a resolution in regard to Shiah rights in Bahrain because of their suppression there. Similarly, around the world, we see the Sri Lankan Buddhist community attacking Muslim businesses, and we know about what is happening to the Rohingyas in Burma. Similarly, we deplore actions by extremist Islamic forces in Bangladesh in regard to Christian, Buddhist and Hindu minorities there. These are matters on which this parliament quite rightly acts, and it is good to see the Assyrian Universal Alliance as representatives here lobbying in their country where they live, where they have been accepted as refugees, in regard to human rights in Iraq.
We are talking essentially about the indigenous people of that land. We are talking about people who have been there since at least 5,000 BC. In Iraq, they have become the scapegoats for extremist elements in the country without much protection from the government authorities and in fact with studied neglect of their rights to protection. Often these attacks are contrived around events happening around the world. We see an upsurge of attacks on Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriac Orthodox people that respond to some comment by the Pope, then we see other attacks because of publications in Danish newspapers et cetera. They become the scapegoats for some of these groups' concerns with events around the world.
We are seeing a very strong flight from Iraq post the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We are talking about half or more of Assyrians fleeing to other nations in the Middle East and, of course, to Sweden and Australia. In Sweden it is so strong that they have their own first division soccer team there. That is symptomatic of the protection in that country. This is, as I say, a series of orchestrated attacks which, in some sense, are basically about making the country homogeneous by getting all minorities expelled from the country by systematic violence. We see that the community also suffer from unemployment, financial hardship, difficulties in education and growing general religious intolerance, shaping the daily life that they suffer. There is no future for their children. There are grave doubts about practising religion, about keeping institutions going and about preserving language and culture in general. These were things that occurred under the previous Ba'athist regime. There might have been some hope with the Western intrusion that things would improve, but, as we have seen, the power of militias in the country has been such that this violence has actually escalated.
Figures in the publication Incipient genocide—the ethnic cleansing of the Assyrians of Iraq, indicate that, in the years 1995 to 2002, 19 Assyrians and other Christians were murdered. From 2003 to 2012, that figure escalated to over 41 a year. We have seen bombings of religious events and targeted assassinations of religious leaders and priests. A two-month-old infant has been kidnapped, beheaded, roasted and returned to his parents. A 14-year-old child has been decapitated.
Regardless of political beliefs across this parliament, members abhor what is occurring. It is important that Australia joins the European parliaments that have condemned these actions and that the message is given to the government of Iraq. Forces from other countries died in the belief that democracy would be restored and that there would be no more attacks on various minorities in the country. An alarming development is that Kurdistan, at one stage, appeared to offer more protection. On balance, that is probably true, but the situation has been deteriorating there as well.
I strongly commend this motion to the House. It is important that this country is vocal on human rights and that we do stand up for minorities regardless of who they are, particularly those whose language, culture and religion face possible extinction if measures are not taken to protect them.
Debate adjourned.
Polio Eradication
Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Parke:
That this House:
(1) commends the Government for its four year commitment to provide $50 million to support the global eradication of polio;
(2) notes:
(a) that in February 2012, India was removed from the list of countries where polio remains endemic, proving that eradication strategies are effective when they are fully implemented and that polio can be eradicated even in the toughest circumstances, and there has not been a single reported case of polio in India since January 2011;
(b) that polio eradication should, wherever possible, be part of routine immunisation efforts to improve population immunity for all priority, vaccine preventable childhood illnesses;
(c) that there are now only three countries in the world where polio has never been stopped, namely Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria, and unless the polio program is fully funded and emergency plans are implemented as planned, polio could make a comeback in countries that are currently polio-free;
(d) estimates show that global re-infection over time could result in as many as 200,000 children per year being paralysed;
(e) that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative currently faces a funding shortfall of US$945 million for the full implementation of its 2012 13 Emergency Action Plan, and this has caused immunisation campaigns to be cancelled or scaled back in 33 countries in Africa and Asia, leaving more children vulnerable to the disease and increasing the risk of the international spread of polio; and
(f) the recent landmark resolution by the Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly declaring the completion of polio eradication, a programmatic emergency for global public health, with member states highlighting the feasibility of eradication in the near-term, while expressing concern at the ongoing funding gap threatening success; and
(3) encourages the Government to continue to support efforts to deliver a polio-free world and to encourage other countries to do likewise.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (12:22): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support this motion, which was brought into the House back in September last year by the member for Fremantle. I would like to put on record her commitment to this issue and all other issues that relate to global health, global human rights and making this world a better place.
It is appropriate that we should be revisiting this motion at this particular time, because last week the government made a commitment to increase funding to help eradicate polio. As we all know, polio is a very debilitating disease. It is currently endemic in only three countries in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. It is very pleasing that it has been limited to those three countries, but unless we fully fund programs, the eradication of polio will not come to fruition.
In 2012, historic progress was made in eradicating polio. The year ended with the lowest number of new polio cases in the fewest places ever. There were fewer than 250 cases reported, compared with 650 cases in 2011 and about 350,000 cases in 1985. In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched, polio was endemic in 125 countries and paralysed about 1,000 children per day. So to go from 125 countries being affected in 1988 to three countries in 2012 is an enormous gain. Since that time, the incidence of polio has decreased by 99 per cent through immunisation efforts that have reached about 2.5 billion children and saved more than 10 billion children from paralysis. We have new tools now to eradicate the polio virus. This is something that we as a nation are promoting, leading to it being embraced in other countries. Most countries have eradicated polio through routine vaccination of children with three doses of oral vaccine. This effectively builds up immunity to all three strains of the virus.
It has been two years since the most recent case of polio was detected in India. Health workers have had success vaccinating children in that country, but neighbouring nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan are struggling to deal with the virus, presenting the possibility of the virus being transported back into India. So it is really important that polio is eradicated in both Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to maintain the situation in India. Polio is resurgent. In Somalia, the first polio case reported since 2007 was the result of several years during which al-Shabaab militants forbade children's vaccinations in zones it controlled. Experts say if we choose to control polio rather than eradicate it, more than 10 million children under the age of five could be paralysed by the disease in the next 40 years. That raises a number of concerns about polio. However, I am going to concentrate on Pakistan.
I visited Pakistan last year and whilst I was there I heard of incidents with health workers. In particular, one doctor was beheaded during his time going out to communities and administering polio vaccinations. Pakistan has active and widespread transmission of polio, particularly in the tribal areas. It has persistent polio transmission which is highly localised in sub-districts. There is a strategic approach to this in Pakistan, but unfortunately politics interfere with the implementation of that plan. Only last week, on 29 May, Pakistani authorities suspended a four-day polio vaccination program after gunmen shot a female polio worker and wounded another official. This has been a blow to the UN campaign to eradicate this crippling disease. The attacks have made it harder for Pakistan to join the majority of other nations and declare Pakistan polio-free. The four-day campaign was launched on Tuesday morning but halted for security reasons and to express solidarity with the slain and injured female polio workers. As yet, no group has claimed responsibility for this attack. In the past it has been alleged that polio workers are US spies. We heard this when the delegation travelled to Pakistan last year. There is even talk that the vaccine makes people sterile—so there is a campaign of misinformation within Pakistan. It is very important that we not only provide the vaccinations but also engage in an education program. That is very difficult in countries like Pakistan. In December, nine polio workers were killed in Pakistan by a gunman. The UN said in March that some 240,000 children have missed vaccinations since July last year in parts of Pakistan's tribal regions. Mr Deputy Speaker, that really is not good enough. It is important that Pakistan joins together with other nations, as should Afghanistan and Nigeria.
I am really pleased that last week the Prime Minister and the foreign minister announced the funding to eradicate polio. This is, as we have already established, a very debilitating disease which strikes and affects the most vulnerable people in countries throughout the world—those three countries that I have highlighted, especially children.
Australia will now provide $80 million over the next four years from 2015 to 2018 to help finish the job and achieve worldwide polio eradication. This follows the $500 million commitment to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative from 2011 to 2014 announced by the Prime Minister at the heads of government in 2011. This fits in very nicely with the motion from the member for Fremantle where she called for polio programs to be fully funded. Once again, she is focusing on the important issues.
Bill Gates was here in this parliament last week—and I note that the Prime Minister and the foreign minister have applauded the wonderful leadership he has shown in this area. The Gates Foundation has contributed $1.8 billion for the polio endgame strategy plan—that is a phenomenal commitment. It was Australia's Sir Clem Renouf who, as president of Rotary International in 1978 and 1979, led the international campaign to vaccinate every child against polio. As a result of that, the global community came together in 1988 to launch the global polio eradication campaign.
I congratulate both the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for the recent announcement. I would also like to express my appreciation to Bill Gates and of course the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:32): I rise to speak on this very important motion by the member for Fremantle and I thank her and indeed the member for Shortland for their ongoing support in the global fight to eradicate polio.
Just last week the Global Polio Eradication Initiative reported a confirmed case of wild poliovirus type 1 in a refugee camp in the Dadaab area in Kenya—the first of its kind since July 2011 which highlights why we continue to discuss this topic and why Australia must continue to do what it can to support the global eradication of polio.
The history of the global effort to eradicate polio is a success story of what countries can achieve when they work together. Until a vaccine was successfully developed in the 1950s, the poliomyelitis virus was an endemic disease for every country in the world. In 1952, 58,000 cases of polio were reported in the United States alone. While between 1930 and 1988, it is estimated that a minimum of 20,000 to 40,000 Australians developed paralytic polio, although exact figures are still unknown.
In many developed countries, the polio vaccine was successfully implemented as a routine immunisation effort to eradicate the disease and, soon after, the number of polio cases in the developed world dropped from hundreds of thousands every year to just a handful. The last reported case of polio in Australia was in 1978.
As this motion notes, eradication strategies have proven to be very effective when they are fully implemented, which is what occurred in developed countries. In fact many of the medical initiatives that we take for granted in the developed world today were implemented out of necessity for fighting the seriousness of polio epidemics.
Intensive care units had their origins in fighting polio. Before the 1950s, hospitals had little capacity for respiratory assistance for patients, and the first respiratory centre opened to treat severe cases of polio leading to the first intensive care unit opening in Copenhagen in 1953.
Additionally, polio endemic countries have been reduced from 125 to just three. As the motion notes, in February 2012, India was removed from the list of countries where polio remains endemic and where there has not been a single reported case since January 2011.
This global effort has meant that the incidence of polio has been reduced by 99 per cent since 1988. It is now a disease of which young people in developed nations are almost unaware. These changes would not have happened if Rotary International and its partners in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative had not taken up the cause. They have worked relentlessly for the past 25 years to fight polio and as the figures previously mentioned indicate, they are getting very close to achieving their goal.
Rotary International's 1.2 million volunteers first took up the charge in 1985, spearheading the immunisation effort against polio before it became a coordinated campaign in 1988. They understood that this global disease would need a global effort if it were to be defeated. With over 33,000 clubs spread across 200 countries, Rotarians are well placed to engage with local governments and communities to ensure that polio eradication is at the top of everyone's agenda. Financially, Rotary itself has contributed well over $900 million to the polio-eradication effort, with its members volunteering their own time and resources to reach over two billion children with the oral polio vaccine.
Rotary's dedication to this cause has been unwavering, as has the dedication from Bill and Melinda Gates through their foundation. Last week Bill Gates visited Australia to reaffirm his commitment to polio eradication and to commend Australia on its contribution to this effort. In a column published in Australian newspapers on 28 May, he said:
Because Australia is increasingly seen as a leader in development, your investments serve as an example and an inspiration to other donors.
And he said:
Now, with polio cases at the lowest levels in history (the slope of that curve has been steep and downward, from 350,000 in 1988 to 223 last year), the organisation in charge of eradication activities has released a plan to get rid of the disease by 2018.
I am looking forward to Australia's continued leadership on this issue, which is my personal priority.
Eradicating polio is important for so many reasons. It proves we have the tools, like vaccines, to save lives. It proves that countries around the world have the systems and will to deliver these tools. And it proves that the world can come together to do something extraordinary.
Australia has been an important part not only of the polio story, but also of the larger development success story. These are achievements for which you deserve to feel proud.
He commended Australia for leading the fight when we hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011 and for pledging more than $50 million for polio eradication. However, more can and must be done, as Mr Gates said, to restore polio to priority status on the global agenda.
Although we can now cross India off the list where polio is endemic, three remain: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. As I mentioned, there has been a confirmed case of wild polio virus in Kenya and in April one further case was confirmed in Somalia. These cases, however isolated, reinforce vigilance is required when dealing with polio.
As Rotary International put it so well: 'As long as polio threatens even one child, anywhere in the world, all children, wherever they live, remain at risk.' If just one child remains at risk then polio can very quickly make a comeback. Estimates show that global polio reinfection over time could result in as many as 200,000 per year being paralysed. It is also true that as we approach the final one per cent of cases of polio, which we hope to prevent, the marginal returns on our investment diminish. These final cases are difficult and expensive to prevent because of challenges, including geographic isolation, armed conflict and cultural barriers. I am all too well aware of how these challenges continue to affect war-torn Afghanistan. It is therefore lamentable that immunisation campaigns in 33 countries of Africa and Asia were cancelled or scaled back because there is a shortfall of some US$945 billion in the global polio-eradication initiative's implementation of the 2012-13 emergency action plan.
More recently, I welcomed the decision of the Australian government to provide $80 million over four years from 2015 to 2018. This contribution pales into insignificance when considering the US$1.8 billion from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the 2013-18 Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan. That plan arose from a directive by the World Health Assembly and involves the Global Polio Eradication Initiative consulting with all relevant national health authorities, global health initiatives, scientific experts, donors and other stakeholders to finally eradicate and contain all cases of polio virus, 'such that no child ever again suffers paralytic poliomyelitis.'
I take this opportunity to again voice my concern about the government's decision to defer its promise to increase the foreign aid budget, instead raiding it of some $375 million. On the one hand the government announces an expansion to support polio eradication—not until 2015—and on the other hand it breaks its commitment to our nearest neighbours, who face challenges of equal measure including corruption, violence against women and other serious infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus.
Australia has been a leading light in the fight to eradicate polio from the world. The end is in sight. But more can be done, and more must be done. I strongly support this private member's motion to further the aim of global polio eradication.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12:40): I congratulate the member for Fremantle, Ms Melissa Parke, for bringing this motion on polio before the House. Polio is a crippling and potentially fatal disease. There is no cure, but there are safe and effective vaccines. Therefore the strategy of eradicating polio from the world is based on preventing infection by immunising every child until transmission of the disease stops and the world is polio free.
Polio is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus. It invades the nervous system and can cause irreversible paralysis in a matter of hours. It can be spread by person-to-person contact, particularly between children and in situations of poor hygiene and sanitation. In 90 per cent of people who contract the disease there are no symptoms. Other signs of the disease can include fever, fatigue, headache, vomiting, stiffness of the neck and pain in limbs.
Around 40 per cent of people who survive paralysis polio may develop additional symptoms 15 to 40 years after the original illness. These symptoms, called post-polio syndrome, include new progressive muscle weakness, severe fatigue and pain in muscles and joints. This was only diagnosed in the last century through the concerns of survivors and family members who did not understand what was going on with them or their relatives. I remember some people who had polio as children, and I have also got to know the Post-Polio Network in Tasmania—I have the honour of being their patron—through representations they have made to me on the issue. It is a horrible disease, and eliminating it from the world is a necessary goal. Understanding the fear and concern of those with post-polio syndrome and being able to have it correctly diagnosed and treated is also vital for our community. That, too, needs to be recognised.
Though there is a worldwide campaign to eradicate polio, there is still more to be done. Polio still turns up from time to time and the main areas of the world affected are Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa and West Africa. Nationals from some of these areas are coming to Australia and they have the potential to bring the disease with them. We are definitely not immune. We must ensure our children are immunised and continue to remain immune. I applaud the activities of those who keep bringing this issue to our attention—people like Bill Gates, who came to Australia recently to remind us of our obligation to keep funding efforts to eradicate the disease. I know we have been providing funds but to ensure that the campaign goes on, to ensure this disease remains in the past, we have to be vigilant and continue research.
Eradication can be complicated by the politics of a country too. In Pakistan and Nigeria 20 vaccinators have been killed undertaking the task. It makes you think, when those who are trying to do away with a disease are killed, that some people's minds must be very warped if they base their politics on those sorts of activities. In some places, the major obstacles to the campaign are insecurity due to armed insurgency and misinformation about the vaccination leading parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated—and so ignorance plays a role in children getting this disease. But even some of the world's most despised regimes are now recognising that they have to fall in with the need to prevent the disease from taking hold. I welcome that news.
We must ensure that immunisation education is continued, not only in this country but wherever we contribute our aid dollar. Hopefully, we will be able to declare sooner rather than later that polio is no longer present in our world. I congratulate the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion before the House.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (12:45): I support the motion on polio eradication put before the chamber by the member for Fremantle. Polio has been one of the scourges of the human race. To think that we are very close to eliminating this disease from the planet is a remarkable thing. But, as this motion indicates, there is more to do.
As a patron of Polio Australia, I take a special interest in this and I acknowledge the words of the member for Lyons about post-polio syndrome. Until quite recently, this was largely unrecognised as a problem, but there are several hundred thousand sufferers. These are people who had a slight touch of polio—maybe not the full paralysis—as children and who are facing difficulties late in life as a result. Members of the Post-Polio Network will be in the House in the next couple of weeks. I acknowledge the work they do under John Tierney to keep that issue alive.
I also acknowledge the work of Rotary. Rotary International have, I think, contributed close to a billion dollars over the last 15 or 16 years. The members of Rotary are in clubs in towns and cities all over the world and they have done a magnificent job. But we still have some way to go.
Before I go any further, I note that I find it a great irony that in Australia we now have people who are refusing to vaccinate their children—when we know what this disease can do. I believe I was one of the first intake of children vaccinated. I still very clearly remember lining up in the mid-sixties at Warialda primary school to have the pink vaccine placed on my tongue. Some of my older schoolmates—some of the kids in the high school—were already then showing visible signs of paralysis from polio. That is how close my generation came to this great scourge.
I will finish by speaking about the Young Australian of the Year, Akram Azimi. Akram was in Parliament House a few months ago and I had the privilege to meet him. He is very passionate about the eradication of polio, because he believes the vaccination program—instigated by Rotary—delivered to him as a small child in Afghanistan saved his life. His family were forced to flee Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. As a small preschooler, he—with his family—escaped to Pakistan. In Pakistan he saw children begging in the streets who were badly paralysed from the effects of polio. When he asked his mother what was wrong with them, she told him it was polio. 'How come I won't get it too?' he asked. She told him that it was because he had been protected, protected by the vaccine provided by Rotary.
Akram Azimi is coming to my electorate in a couple of weeks time. Over a couple of days, we will be speaking to schools and to the Rotary clubs. He is in fact a Paul Harris fellow of Rotary—a great tribute from Rotary for someone who is, I think, only 25 years of age.
I think that this is something that we cannot give up on. We are so close. I believe that India is about to be named as being polio free, but we do have some hot spots on the world. I acknowledge the contribution the government made recently, and I believe that, as a developed country, we should continue that support for the eradication of polio throughout the globe.
We are privileged to live in the country we live in. So often we take good health for granted. In this day and age there are children being born and growing up under threat of this terrible debilitating disease of polio—even possible death—when prevention is so easy. It is a shame, and we should be doing more about it.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (12:51): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We will not mention the football on the weekend, obviously! I rise to speak about something very serious, which is the member for Fremantle's motion to eradicate polio. Last week in Parliament House we were joined by dozens of polio survivors and their friends and families. It was a revelation to learn how far the polio family tree can reach amongst our families and the community.
Polio is transmitted by contaminated water and food supplies, enters through a child's mouth and then multiplies in the throat and intestines. In a matter of hours, the polio virus can enter the brain and spinal cord, destroying the cells that enable muscles to contract, and causing paralysis. Sadly, in five to 10 per cent of cases, the child dies.
More than 10 million children will be paralysed in the next 40 years if the world fails to capitalize on its US$9 billion global investment in eradication. Bill Gates came and spoke here in Australia last week with our nation's leaders about the work that his foundation is doing to rid the world of polio. He said that we are down to just three countries and 300 cases, and he gives himself a good chance of eradicating the disease.
Last year I went to Pakistan with a delegation and saw the great work being done. It would be nice to achieve that goal. During Mr Gates's visit to Australia, Prime Minister Gillard announced an $80 million boost to the polio fight. And that will be combined with the US$1.8 billion put in by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to eradicate polio.
For 25 years, on a more local basis, Rotary International has been fighting to eradicate the tenacious disease, polio. Rotary International has 1.2 million members worldwide in more than 200 countries. I would particularly like to acknowledge some of the local Rotary members in my electorate of Moreton. Now, with the great work around the world—by immunising more than two billion children—we have reduced the number of polio cases by 99 per cent. In fact on Friday I went to the Spinal Injuries Association for a catch-up and I met with David Riley the president, who is also a Sunnybank resident, and Bruce Milligan the CEO. They told me—it was something that I had not realised—that there is something called post-polio syndrome. The Spinal Injuries Association often deals with people who had polio when they were children. They are now ageing and are covered by the Spinal Injuries Association because some of the symptoms of the late effects of polio include muscle and joint pain and the like, and the Spinal Injuries Association provides support to them.
I want to go back to the work of some of the Rotary clubs in my electorate and their inspiring fundraising efforts such as the efforts of the amazing team at Rocks Riverside Rotary Club in Oxley—Brad Butcher, the president; Frank Sauter, the treasurer; Lucinda Coalter, the secretary; and Chris Antoniess, the fundraising organiser. They donated iPads to the aged care ward at Canossa Hospital, they donated money to the Brisbane Basket Brigade, but they also raised money for the polio campaign. So they have been working locally to raise funds locally but then helping the rest of the world. I know that Rocks Riverside Rotary Club are looking for new members, so I am putting that out there for people who are interested in supporting a great community group.
I also want to acknowledge the Rotary Club of Salisbury. I attended their 50-year anniversary dinner earlier this year, in January. They do local work but have also raised money to give to the international polio campaign. The Rotary Club of Sunnybank Hills also had a fundraising dinner to raise money for the global fight towards eradicating polio.
I will not name all the people in the Rotary Club of Archerfield because I know there are significant players from Liberal and National parties there. I was at a function with them yesterday. On election day we stand on opposite sides of the ballot box but on the other 364 days of the year they are out there working for their community both at the international level—I know that the Dean brothers, who have a connection with Pakistan have sent money back to eradicate polio.
I would also like to mention the Walter Taylor Bridge branch of Rotary, which is only just one-year-old but is trying to recruit people. I saw them at the Sherwood State School fete the other day. They had a stall there, reaching out to people who can then show the great community spirit involved, be involved on a local level and also commit to eradicating polio on a larger scale.
The good news is that polio is completely preventable since the virus cannot live long outside the human body. Immunisation can prevent this disease spreading and can eradicate it. As Bill Gates said, we will be able to eradicate it and that would be a good thing to do on our watch. Polio still threatens children around the world so every community group should be making an effort to raise funds.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (12:56): It was a pleasure to visit your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker McClelland, last Friday in the company of Nick Varvaris, the Liberal candidate and the Mayor of Kogarah. I believe, if given a chance, he would make an excellent and worthy successor to you.
This particular motion concerns the issue of polio both globally and within Australia. In Australia I have been very close to the polio community. The driving force behind that was Fran Henke, a former journalist who lives in my electorate. She lives in Hastings. She was a polio sufferer as a child with significant lifelong challenges as a consequence. It was Fran who introduced me to the world of post-polio sufferers and the fact that there are an estimated 400,000 polio survivors in Australia and millions around the world. They have not just the direct legacy of polio but of post-polio onset. That is in itself a condition in need of recognition. There has been some worthy work from governments of both persuasions. However, there remains a gap in health system in terms of specific and direct recognition of post-polio syndrome. It is something to which I have committed on a bipartisan basis with people from both sides of the House.
There is a strong and consistent push for bipartisanship, which the member for Moreton referred to previously. I think that is a fundamental approach with post-polio syndrome. There are 400,000 polio survivors or those who have post-polio syndrome in Australia. In particular, the post-polio syndrome side needs greater recognition. It is my belief that we need to have a full and independent inquiry into the scope and extent of the syndrome as well as the needs of sufferers of post-polio syndrome, and the steps we can and should take going forward as parliament, not as a government of one persuasion or another, but as a parliament to deal with these issues. That includes how we deal with post-polio syndrome within the National Disability Insurance Scheme framework—noting that the vast majority of sufferers would already be or will soon be over 65 years of age.
We may recognise their condition but they may still fall through the gaps. That means we need to have a specific action plan for post-polio sufferers. People such as John Tierney, Mary-ann Liethof and others involved should be commended for their work, but our commitment is to practical action to assist them going forward.
My specific contribution is to call for and propose the inquiry into post-polio syndrome, its extent, its impact and the steps forward which we can take if not in this parliament then in the next parliament.
On a broader basis around the world, whilst we have made extraordinary steps in eradicating the unbelievably damaging and cruel condition and illness that is polio, there is more work to be done. There is more work in dealing with the sufferers who have had to, in many cases, deal with lifelong disability and extreme pain. They have had to do so where there is little support in parts of the world of extreme poverty or low socioeconomic circumstances. In that respect, I commend wholeheartedly the works of groups such as Rotary, which have made one of their global commitments to address the eradication of poverty. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is rightly working towards the total global eradication of polio. There is more to be done on that front, although it remains extant in only three countries, to the best of my knowledge. It can easily bubble up, so we have to work towards complete eradication and then the period of three years where there is no further notification. The Australian government rightly has a role to play. If you think of things where our foreign aid is most effectively used, eradication of fundamental diseases must surely be right at the top.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:00): It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton talk about some of the symptoms of polio. For a lot of people born in the last 40 years in Australia and in many other countries around the world, their experience of this dreadful disease would be negligible, if non-existent. It was a very prevalent disease all around the world, and still remains so in a very small number of countries. In fact, from 1912 to 1972 in Australia there were over 30,000 cases of the worst form of paralytic poliomyelitis. A large number of polio survivors in Australia still live with the pain and debilitation of that post-polio syndrome. A number have spoken to me lately about their increasing difficulty as they age. So the previous speaker is quite right in that we do have a lot of work to do to recognise the circumstances of polio survivors in our own country.
I want to acknowledge the work of Rotary in particular. Rotary International, the office of Australia, is in my electorate—it is in Philip Street. They have been very assertive, shall I say, in their calls for Australia to continue to fund the eradication of polio and they have been very successful at it. I am pleased that last week the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, announced further funding to help eradicate polio. They announced funding of $80 million over four years from 2015 to 2018 to help finish the job. That comes on top of a $50 million contribution to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative from 2011 to 2014, which was announced by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in 2011. So there is no doubt that Australia is doing its part now, but we also played quite a part in the early years of the Eradicate Polio initiative. At some point in the 70s, someone in Rotary thought, 'I've got an idea: we'll eradicate polio'—just like that. They managed to convince Rotary clubs all around the world that this was not only doable but it had to be done. It was Australia's Sir Clem Renouf, who was President of Rotary International from 1978 to 1979, who led the international campaign to vaccinate every child against polio. It was as a result of those early efforts of Rotary that the global community came together in 1988 to launch the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.
Like many people my age, I was vaccinated as a child in primary school, with one of those plastic spoons with that bright, nasty, sweet pink stuff on it. You never forget it. I am not sure whether I had it more than once, but you only have to have it once to remember it. It was sickly sweet and on a very small plastic spoon—the kind of plastic spoon you get with a tub of yogurt now. I remember they were quite unique at the time; they were just the polio spoons, as we remember them. It was an extraordinary campaign in Australia to vaccinate Australian children. Since that initiative came together in 1988, there has been remarkable success around the world and there has been a reduction in the number of polio cases to 99.9 per cent, which is an extraordinary achievement by a lot of people all around the world who put their effort and sometimes their life work into eradicating what is a dreadful disease.
As early as 1994 there were 36 countries in the region of America that were declare polio-free. In 2000 the Western Pacific region of 37 countries was declares free from the virus, and the European region of 51 countries received polio-free status as late as June 2002. By 2009, just a few years ago, there had been more than 361 million children immunised against the disease, just as I was nearly five decades ago. So, it has taken a while but it is an extraordinary achievement. By 2010, the year before we announced the first 50 million for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, there were only four countries in the world that remained polio endemic. They were, of course, India, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan. Then in 2012, just last year, India was certified polio-free. There are still three countries, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan, where polio is found, so we still have some work to do. Even if we eradicate polio in those countries, we still have to stay on guard because it does appear from time to time such as in Chad and now in Sudan. We still have work to do.
I congratulate all of the people around the world who have worked so hard to do such an extraordinary job. There is more work to do, but great work has been done so far.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (13:06): I compliment the member for Fremantle for the original genesis of this motion, and the members for Ryan and Shortland who have led the debate today. Let me say that anyone whose life has been touched by polio will never forget it. That occurred in my family when I was a young child when my sister got polio. Fortunately it was a reasonably mild attack and she was nursed at home. I still remember the boiling of the kitchen utensils, plates and things, which was a sterilisation method that had to be used if you nursed people at home.
I can remember our family doctor coming around one night and he was very distressed. My mother offered him a cup of tea and asked, 'What is wrong?' He said, 'After I leave here I'm going back to the hospital. I've got two children to save tonight, but only one iron lung left.' The iron lung, of course, was the way to enable children or people, who were paralysed from polio, to breathe. Of course, if you did not have an iron lung, you were in trouble, and most hospitals had a bank of these iron lungs. That is an example of how back it was in Warwick when I was a kid.
When I was at boarding school, our class—grade 9 as we call it today—was put into isolation because we had a couple of cases of polio in our class. The whole school was given injections of gamma globulin. It was not so much a vaccination but was more a preventative that gave you a chance to beat polio if it was around. I have very vivid memories of it. I can remember one of my teachers who had transferred from Victoria. It was so bad in Victoria at the height of the polio epidemic that the kids, in what you would call a 'dark joke', used to call the ambulances that came to pick the kids up 'the meat wagon'. It was a really bad time in Australia's history and we are blessed to be rid of the disease.
I would like to compliment Rotary. I have been a Rotarian for many years, and I am an honorary one at present. The Rotary PolioPlus initiative has been a marvellous program. They have taken on about 14 per cent of the world effort in eradicating polio. Most of the funding, of course, has come from governments through the United Nations' programs, but Rotary have provided 66 per cent of the private funding for polio eradication.
I well remember in this very building a former world president of Rotary—a Queenslander, in fact—a fellow called Glen Kinross. He came to the parliament and called all members of parliament who were Rotarians together and asked them assist him to get some more funding because, at that stage, he was trying to eliminate polio from the Pacific. John Howard came to the lunch and, if not totally successful, we were certainly partially successful in gaining that funding. Rotary must use this money for transportation, vaccine delivery, social mobilisation and the training of health workers. It has been a labour of love for 25 years and will, if all our efforts succeed, come to a total cost to those clubs of $1.2 billion.
It is a marvellous initiative. We worry about plants and animals, the flora and fauna, being diseased in this country, but we are sometimes very sanguine about the human condition. This is not something that we can be sanguine about. The fact that Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan are still gravely at risk means that we must act. Of course, if we do not act, we know the figures—we know that we will be looking at 200,000 cases of polio a year, and that is something we cannot contemplate.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:11): I rise on this occasion to add my support to the motion moved by the member for Fremantle to commend the government on its four-year commitment to provide $50 million to support the global eradication of polio. This brings Australia's financial commitment to the eradication of the disease to over $130 million, including a recent announcement of $80 million from 2015 to 2018. The measures are aimed towards stopping the transmission of the disease by the end of next year and seeing the world certified polio free at the World Health Assembly in five years time.
Australia has been a leader in the fight to eradicate polio on a global level since the late 1970s, when Sir Clem Renouf, in his role as President of Rotary International, led a campaign to vaccinate every child against this disease. This led to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which was launched in 1988 and has seen a reduction in polio cases by 99.9 per cent. Today, the polio endemic remains only in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria.
Of course, the fight against this disease has not been an easy one. From 1912 to 1972, 30,000 cases in Australia were reported and many polio survivors today still live with the pain and debilitation of post-polio syndrome. In 1937 in my electorate of Bass, a polio epidemic swept through Launceston. Over 1,000 people, mostly children, contracted polio. This epidemic was one of the worst per-capita global outbreaks and within a year Tasmania had the second highest number of polio cases per capita in the world. The Launceston General Hospital took a leading role in the treatment of polio in northern Tasmania following the outbreak in 1937, where sufferers where treated at the infectious diseases unit. The number of masseuses and physiotherapists at the Launceston General Hospital was increased from one of each to ten of each to cope with the demand for their services in the treatment of polio. So great was the need for accommodation that a special grant of £4,000 was obtained to build a new wing at the Launceston General Hospital. It was completed in just 35 days by two shifts of workmen. The first obstetric delivery of a baby to a mother in an iron lung was carried out at the Launceston General Hospital at this time. A local doctor, Dr WK McIntyre, was responsible for the invention of an 'infant iron lung' for use by premature babies with polio.
Also in response to this polio outbreak, the Reverend RW Dobbinson, a Baptist minister, established the St Giles home in Launceston. Named after the patron saint of children with disabilities, St Giles operated as an institution to provide support for children affected by polio. Today, St Giles is still providing support, respite, and adult health services for 6,000 young Tasmanians with disabilities from its campuses in Hobart and Launceston via its e-health network.
Many children affected by polio sought support from St Giles. A close friend of mine and a great contributor to Northern Tasmanian business was one of these children. He kindly shared some of his experiences with me. After contracting polio in 1941 as an infant, his childhood changed dramatically. He spent almost an entire year in an iron lung. Later he would wear callipers on his arms and legs and a brace on his back, although he often felt self-conscious about this, especially at not being able to join his school friends on the footy or cricket ground. As a nine-year-old he spent 12 months living in Queensland with an uncle who he credits with treating him as an equal for the first time and teaching him to be self-sufficient and to do everyday tasks like tying his shoelaces despite some limited mobility as a result of the impact of the polio virus.
As a survivor of polio he is adamant that the goal of global eradication is of the utmost importance and Australia should do all it can to assist in achieving this. I quote Keith, who said:
I cannot believe that in a modern world children are not vaccinated against this virus when a vaccine is so readily available, especially as there is no cure once contracted. It is absolutely preventable and we should do all we can.
I certainly echo these sentiments. Again, I offer my congratulations to the Gillard Labor government for its commitment to supporting the global eradication of polio.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:16): I commend the member for Fremantle and other speakers on this important motion about the eradication of polio. Polio is a disabling and potentially fatal disease. Whilst there is currently no cure for the disease there are safe and effective vaccinations to ensure its eradication.
Polio is a highly-infectious disease which invades the nervous system and acts quickly, so quickly it can cause irreversible paralysis within a matter of hours. In 1988 the global eradication of polio effort began, led by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund and Rotary International. At this time the wild polio virus was endemic in 125 countries and about 350,000 people, mainly young children, were paralysed by polio annually. Today, thanks to immunisation efforts, the number of polio cases throughout the world has decreased by more than 99 per cent, in turn saving more than 10 million children from paralysis.
PolioPlus is the volunteer arm of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. It is the most ambitious program in Rotary's history. Rotary has been a leader for more than 25 years in the global effort in the private sector to rid the world of polio and has contributed more than US$1 billion. I am proud to say that the Rotary clubs in the Riverina, and there are many of them, continue to do all they can by way of fundraising in an effort to rid the world of this dreadful scourge.
The global eradication initiative focuses on four key initiatives to stop the transmission of the polio virus. Routine immunisation ensures four doses of the oral polio vaccine are administered in the first year of life, a critical way to ensure polio-free countries continue to protect children from the threat of imported polio. National immunisation days are held, and have been for decades, where Rotarians provide funds through the PolioPlus program for millions of drops of vaccine, promoting the campaign in communities, distributing the vaccine to health centres as well as serving as monitors and working with local officials to reach every child. Furthermore, Rotarians work alongside health professionals and others to find, report and investigate cases of acute flaccid paralysis ideally within 48 hours of onset.
PolioPlus helps fund containers which preserve the integrity of stool samples during their delivery to laboratories. The program has also helped to provide equipment for global polio virus laboratories. The final strategy is targeted mop-up campaigns, which are similar to National Immunisation Day volunteering but on a smaller scale, often going house to house.
Australia was declared polio free in 2000 and that was widely attributed to high rates of immunisation. I appreciate there is a vaccination debate going on at present but certainly the benefits far outweigh the risks. Unfortunately, there are still three polio-endemic countries in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. In 2012 the total number of wild virus cases reported was 223 with Nigeria reporting 122, Pakistan 58, Afghanistan 37, Chad five and Niger one. Several other countries also saw outbreaks of vaccine-driven polio which took the total number of cases to 291. This is the smallest number on record and is further proof that the eradication initiative is working.
Last year, I was able to meet Isabel Thompson, a constituent of mine from Wagga Wagga, to discuss funding needs for those living with polio. Mrs Thompson gave me an insight into the challenges she faces daily and the importance of ensuring assistance is available to help those living with polio.
The success rate of eradicating polio around the world is to be highly commended. In addition to eradicating polio from so many countries around the world, the type 2 virus was actually eradicated in 1999, leaving only two wild polio viruses still in existence.
Thankfully, the Taliban has ended its war on polio vaccination workers. Its leadership admitted on 13 May that immunisation is the only way to protect children from the disease. This declaration came just weeks after the Afghan government launched a new campaign to immunise more than eight million children between six-months-old and five-years-old throughout the country. It said it had trained 46,000 volunteers to conduct the campaign, funded by the American aid agency USAID, the World Health Organization and UNICEF.
Efforts to eradicate the disease have been sabotaged in the past by the Taliban and other Islamic militants, who have assassinated immunisation workers in the three countries where polio remains a serious threat. Eleven polio workers were killed in Pakistan last year, including five women who were shot dead in Karachi in December. In Afghanistan, a 16-year-old girl involved in an antipolio vaccination campaign in Kapisa province was shot six times in the stomach outside her home last December and died later in hospital. That is absolutely tragic.
Thankfully the Taliban has now recognised the benefits of immunisation. Thankfully, Rotary is proceeding with what they need to do to help eradicate it. I commend the government in a bipartisan way for doing what they can too.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ) (13:21): I thank the honourable member and I commend all speakers for their contributions to the debate. The time allotted for this debate has now expired. Debate adjourned.
Sit ting suspended from 13:22 to 16 : 04
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014
Consideration in Detail
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ) (16:04): The Federation Chamber will now consider the bill in detail. In accordance with standing order 149, the Federation Chamber will first consider the schedule of the bill.
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:05): May I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Federation Chamber that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios estimates has been discussed with the opposition and other non-government members and there has been no objection to what has been proposed.
The schedule read as follows—
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Treasury
Human Services
Health and Ageing
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Finance and Deregulation
Attorney-General’s
Immigration and Citizenship
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Defence—Defence
Defence—Veterans Affairs
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Employment and Workplace Relations
Infrastructure and Transport
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—School Education, Early Childhood and Youth
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Resources, Energy and Tourism
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport
Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research
Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Climate Change, Industry, Innovation and Small Business
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Prime Minister and Cabinet
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of the proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? If there is no objection, it is so ordered.
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Proposed expenditure, 6,823,418,000
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:06): I do have a number of questions of the minister which I will put to him. If he is unable to answer them now, I do ask that he take them on notice and ensure that they are answered before the parliamentary recess. I refer the minister to the 2013-14 budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Can the minister confirm that funding for the department will decline by one per cent in real terms? Could he advise how much this in dollar terms? Where will the savings be made? Is the minister aware of reports showing funding for the department declining to 0.31 per cent of total government expenditure by 2016-17? Can the minister confirm that this would represent a one third decline in the level of funding when compared to the final year of the Howard government? Could the minister also advise the implications for the department if funding falls to the level projected?
On a matter in Budget Paper No. 2, the section marked 'Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Efficiencies', when was the decision made to close Australia's embassy in Hungary? Why was Hungary chosen for closure? Was a cost benefit analysis carried out? When was the Hungarian ambassador to Australia informed of this decision and who informed the ambassador? Can the minister explain how journalist Dan Flitton came to know of this decision at a time that I suggest was prior to information being provided to the Hungarian ambassador? Is the department investigating how the media came to know of this decision on the morning before I understand the ambassador was told? If not, why not? When was the Australian ambassador to Hungary informed of this decision? When were locally-engaged staff informed of the decision? How many weeks notice have they been given? Will they receive a termination payout and, if so, how much? I ask whether the minister agrees with the statement of the then secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Dennis Richardson who said:
Closing a mission saves very little, the reason being once you have got a mission up and running your running costs are quite low.
It might cost you $25 million over three or four years to open a post, but if, 10 years later, you were to close that post you would probably only save about $2 million a year.
In relation to the proposal to establish an embassy in Senegal, when was the decision taken to postpone the establishment of an embassy in Senegal? Had any planning or construction work taken place? Had the department entered into any contracts regarding the proposed embassy? Had any funds been spent and, if so, how much? Did the department advise the Senegal government that Australia was not going to proceed with the embassy before the government announced it publicly? If so, when was this advice given? Has the Senegal government made any representations to the department on this issue since the government's announcement? Can or will the minister rule out closing other embassies?
I refer to Budget Paper No. 2 and the section marked 'Efficiencies'. According to the budget paper, the government will achieve savings from 'a temporary reduction in Canberra based positions'. How many jobs will be cut at the department in 2013-14? Does the department expect to offer any voluntary redundancies? If so, how many? Will the department have to make any forced redundancies? If so, how many?
As a result of the government funding cuts in 2012-13, the then secretary of the department stated that 100 to 150 jobs would be shed. Can the minister advise how many jobs have been lost at the department this year, how many of these were voluntary redundancies and how much money has been spent on voluntary redundancy payments in total in 2012-13? How much does the department expect to spend next year as a result of these job losses?
On the United Nations Security Council, I refer to the section marked 'United Nations Security Council term'. How much money has been spent to date to support Australia's role on the United Nations Security Council? How many additional positions have been created to support Australia's role on the council? Have all the additional positions being filled?
In relation to the Asian century, I refer the minister to the reference to the implementation of the Australia in the Asian Century white paper and DFAT's strategic directions statement. What resources have been provided to the department to open a full embassy in Mongolia and consulates in China, Thailand and eastern Indonesia? Has the government given any undertakings to the relevant governments about these posts? Why were these locations identified as priorities? Why are they being delayed if they are a priority? What percentage of board members— (Time expired)
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:11): In relation to departmental funding, the fact is that the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I am advised, has increased since 2007-08 by $70 million. Any government would like to spend more on just about anything, but the fact is that the decline in commodity prices operating in conjunction with a very high dollar has meant that there have been very substantial write-downs of revenue. When I listened to the opposition leader's budget reply I heard him say, or at the very least heard it said subsequently, that the coalition would be waving through the various savings measures that have been announced by this government. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has departed from that position, I am sure that at the time of the PEFO 10 days into the election campaign those extra expenditures that are being foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be booked to account against the coalition.
In relation to Hungary, this is a decision which with a very large amount of money and no limits on money we would not have made. But in the end you do need to make decisions to achieve the budget bottom line that we have set out in the 2013-14 budget. In that tight fiscal environment the department, like all government agencies, has been subject to savings to offset new budget measures. We do not take lightly any decision to close a post. Budapest is one of our smallest posts and we will continue to serve the bilateral relationship well from other missions nearby. The embassy is scheduled to be closed by the end of September 2013 and savings from the closure will be $0.3 million in 2013-14 and around $1.7 million thereafter. In respect of whether the Hungarian government was advised of the announcement in advance, no, the Hungarian government became aware of the closure before formal advice had been conveyed. The Australian Ambassador to Hungary, His Excellency John Griffin, was directed to advise the Hungarian government of the decision on Monday, 13 May immediately ahead of the budget announcement on 14 May. DFAT was also scheduled to convey the decision to the Hungarian ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Anna Maria Siko, on 13 May. The closure of the embassy was reported in the Age on Monday, 13 May and then confirmed by Senator Carr on ABC radio that morning.
In relation to Senegal, we are already establishing a presence in Senegal. We will be establishing that as promised in 2013. We expect to operate from temporary premises initially. We anticipate it will take a year or two until a suitable location or a chancelry is identified and work can commence on establishing a permanent presence. These time frames are pretty standard for a post opening. Again, we have committed to a post in Senegal. We are going ahead with that commitment.
In relation to job cuts at the department, obviously it is in the interests of the department and of the government to minimise any impact on jobs. We believe that the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are highly valued and highly professional people. It is, let us say, a supreme irony that I am getting a question from the opposition about job cuts in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade when that political party has committed to job cuts of 20,000 people—which would have an enormous impact on Canberra, on the ACT and on house prices. To be lectured about job cuts by an opposition that is committed to cutting 20,000 people's jobs is a bit rich.
I will seek to answer the remaining questions by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the UN Security Council—to the extent that it is feasible to do so—on notice. In relation to posts more generally, under this government the following posts have been opened: the Holy See, Mumbai, Chennai and Addis Ababa, and we are opening Chengdu and Senegal. (Time expired)
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:16): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that the minister has provided rather general answers. I do ask again that the minister take the specific questions on notice and provide specific answers to my questions prior to the parliamentary recess.
I would like to go on in regard to the Australia and the Asian century white paper: what percentage of board members and Australian Public Service senior leadership are currently considered by the government to have 'deep experience in and knowledge of Asia', and how does the government define deep experience as set out in the white paper? What has the government done to make it easier for low-risk visitors to come to Australia, as called for in the white paper? What steps has the government taken to streamline the visa process? Given the importance placed on food security in the white paper, what assurances has the government provided to Indonesia that it will not again unilaterally ban live cattle exports, thus threatening Indonesia's food security? What has the government done to expand the Work and Holiday visa program to 1,000 places for Indonesia? Could we have an update on that? When will this expansion of places take place?
I also refer the minister to Budget Paper No. 2 and to the section marked Australia in the Asian century: business engagement program. How many Australian businesses are currently participating in that engagement program? How many grants have been made available under the program, and what is the average size of the grants? I point out that the grants are apparently available for amounts from $20,000 to $300,000.
On the matter of trade, I have a number of questions. I refer the minister to the 2013-14 budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and to the fact that funding for the department will be cut by one per cent in real terms. Which of Australia's long-running, free trade agreement negotiations currently under way does the government expect to conclude before the September election, given the government's latest budget cuts? Does the minister stand by his comment that a free trade agreement with China is 'overrated'—despite a joint feasibility study finding that a free trade agreement could boost Australia's real GDP by around $24 billion over the period 2006 to 2015? What impact are the government's funding cuts having on the department's ability to commence new free trade agreement negotiations? When did Hong Kong first approach the government about establishing a free trade agreement? What was the government's response to the proposal? If it was in writing, will the minister release the letter? When was the government's response officially communicated to the Hong Kong government? What reasons were given for this decision? Was the department asked to provide advice on the proposed free trade agreement with Hong Kong? If so, when was that advice provided? Did the department undertake any economic modelling to determine the benefits to Australia, should a free trade agreement be signed with Hong Kong, and if so, what was the result of that economic modelling?
If no economic modelling was undertaken, why not? What are the benefits to Australia from closer economic and trade ties with Hong Kong? Would the minister describe the potential benefits as significant or does the minister believe that a free trade agreement with Hong Kong is overrated as he said in relation to a free trade agreement with China? Does the minister agree that Hong Kong is considered an important gateway in and out of the Chinese market? Would a free trade agreement with Hong Kong give Australian businesses greater access to China? Does the minister agree with that?
I also refer the minister to the reference to Indonesia in the department's strategic directions statement. What is the current state of negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement? When did the last round of negotiations take place? Has a date been set for next round of talks and, if so, what date is that?
What steps has the Australian embassy in Indonesia taken recently to restore the live cattle trade between Australia and Indonesia? What consultations have taken place between the live cattle industry and the department? Is the department aware of the campaign by Animals Australia Inc. to end live exports? Does the minister agree that this would have a devastating impact on regional Australia? (Time expired)
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:21): In respect of the white paper on Australia in the Asian century, this is a plan for Australia. It is a plan for deeper and broader engagement between Australia and the region, which is the fastest growing region on earth. By 2030, it is expected that there will be three billion middle-class customers in Asia, and the Australian government is overseeing a transition where we broaden that relationship. Minerals and energy will continue to be important, but there are whole lot of areas such as premium agricultural products and services where we think Australia has potential strengths based on our natural endowments and our acquired attributes—that is the theme of the white paper on Australia in the Asian century.
That white paper is being implemented and an implementation plan, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated, has been released publicly. It has been overseen by an advisory board, and the shadow minister's question is: what experience have members of that advisory board had in Asia? I think the shadow minister should know that. Ken Henry, as the original chair, of this exercise has consulted extensively and gone through various countries of the region in preparing a lot of input into the white paper. John Denton, who is a senior in the Business Council of Australia, as a legal professional has had deep experience with Asia and continues to do so, and Catherine Livingstone of Telstra, similarly. We have a appointed the chair, Hamish Tyrwhitt , and he through Leighton Holdings and his earlier work has had at least 15 years not only experience with Asia but living in Asia. I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have tried to do enough homework even just to check his curriculum vitae. She would have found that. Rebecca Dee-Bradbury is the CEO of Kraft. This is an industry which we consider to be a sunrise industry—that is, the production of premium agricultural products here in Australia, not only the growing, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, but the manufacturing of those products. In your own area, South Australian wines are regarded very highly in the region, and this is an areas of high value-added and very high demand. Margaret Gardner from RMIT: again, they have engagement with and some campuses in Asia and of course we see one of the future growing industries—and it is more than an industry—with Asia as our higher education. This is a way of strengthening the ties between our two countries, earning some expert income and creating ambassadors for Australia in Asia and for Asian countries in Australia.
In respect of streamlining of visa processes, we have moved in that direction. We have been working with China to do that, and more work will be done as the Chinese are able to take some further steps with Australia in that regard.
On food security: the issue is a big one in the 21st century. There are seven billion people on earth now. By 2050 there will be 9.3 billion people on earth, and obviously food security is one of the defining issues of the 21st century.
I hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asking about live cattle exports. Yes, I do talk very regularly with my counterpart Indonesian Trade Minister Gita Wirjawan about those matters. You might be aware that just last week the Indonesians announced that they are allowing premium beef cuts in duty free and quota free. That is a really good development. I must have missed the press release from the coalition congratulating Australia and Indonesia on that, but the fact is that the coalition is only interested in bad news and never good news.
On the business program of $6 million that is contained in the white paper: the fact is that applications have been received—there has been an enormous level of interest in that—and final decisions will be announced on the successful recipients of this round of applications.
On free trade agreements, let us just start with China, where I remember the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that that was a priority, and the day after— (Time expired)
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:26): In relation to the free trade agreement negotiations with South Korea, when did the last round of negotiations take place? Are there any remaining sticking points or hurdles in the negotiations and, if so, what are they? Is the minister aware of comments by Mr David Farley, Managing Director of the Australian Agricultural Company, that Australia's failure to conclude a free trade agreement with Korea is costing the country $3 million per week? Is this figure correct? If not, what is the correct figure?
What has the impact of the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement been on Australian exports to Korea? Specifically, how much beef does Australia currently export to Korea? Has the amount of beef exported to Korea declined since the introduction of the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement, and how much has Australia lost in dollar terms? What is the current tariff rate for Australian beef exports to Korea, and how does this compare to the tariff imposed on US exports? What is the tariff rate for other agricultural products? What is the estimated benefit of a free trade agreement with South Korea for the Australian economy, and what are the estimated benefits for Australia's agricultural sector from a free trade agreement with Korea?
In relation to the Japan free trade agreement, what is the current status of the free trade negotiations with Japan? When did the last round of negotiations take place? What are the remaining hurdles or sticking points in the negotiations? What are the estimated benefits for Australia's agricultural sector from a free trade agreement with Japan? Has the minister's recent comment blaming Japan's central bank for driving down the value of the yen had any impact in Japan, and is the minister aware of any coverage in the Japanese media of his comments? Does the minister agree that his comments were unhelpful, given the circumstances surrounding current negotiations that are underway?
In relation to the China free trade agreement—the minister made reference to it—could he state what the current status of the free trade agreement negotiations with China is? When did the last round of negotiations take place, and did the Minister for Trade take part in those negotiations? When does the minister expect negotiations to conclude? If there are remaining sticking points or hurdles to concluding an agreement, what are they? Is the minister aware that New Zealand's goods exports to China have trebled since the conclusion of their free trade agreement in 2008? Is the minister also aware that 90 per cent of New Zealand's goods exports now enter China duty free? What is the current tariff rate for Australian agricultural exports to China, and how does this compare to New Zealand exports? What has been the impact of the China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement on Australian exports to China in both volume and dollar terms?
According to the portfolio budget statement, the revised budget figures for both passports and notary acts have been lowered due to the closure of the Atlanta office. I would like to ask some questions about the Atlanta office that was closed in August 2012. How much consular work was conducted by the Atlanta office? How many Australian businesses operating in the United States were engaged with the Atlanta office? Has the government received any complaints from Australian businesses regarding the closure of the Atlanta office and, if so, how many? Has the workload for other posts increased since the closure of the Atlanta office?
I have another question on trade. In 2009, as the minister would be aware, the Australia government launched Brand Australia and contributed $20 million over four years, yet in the 2013-14 budget the government is terminating the program. Does the minister consider the Brand Australia trial to have been a success? If so, why is it now being terminated? If it was not a success, what were the specific problems? What is the implication for associated projects, including Australia Unlimited and Future Unlimited? How much money was spent promoting Brand Australia at the London Olympics and, specifically, what was the money spent on? When was the decision made to terminate Brand Australia? Can the minister advise whether this decision to terminate Brand Australia was made before or after the London Olympics?
Finally, on expenditure on diplomatic appointments: what head of mission positions will be appointed between now and the September election? What are those positions? Have people already been selected to fill all of the positions? Have the names of any current or former Labor Party politicians been raised in regard to these positions and will any of them be appointed to these head of mission positions?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:31): I will seek to complete my answers to the previous set of questions and then move on to the current set. I have been asked about the Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the impact of the suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia on our broader relations with Indonesia. The fact is that Australia enjoys a very good relationship with Indonesia at all levels, especially between the President and the Prime Minister and ministers and their counterparts. I repeat that I see trade minister Gita Wirjawan very often. In fact, I discussed with him in Surabaya at the APEC trade ministers meeting the issue of beef exports, where he indicated that he was seeking to expand beef imports into Indonesia.
In terms of potential damage to the relationship with Indonesia, there can be no greater damage than seeking to verbal ministers in the Indonesian government and, indeed, the Indonesian ambassador—
Ms Julie Bishop: My point of order is that in the other chamber I made quite clear in a personal explanation that the media had got that headline wrong and, in fact, the media have withdrawn it. So the minister should not continue to verbal me in this place, because he is on notice—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Minister for Trade has the call.
Dr EMERSON: In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has sought to create an impression that there was an understanding between the coalition and the Indonesian government to tow back boats. That is completely false. That has been denied by the Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, and it has been denied by—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Dr EMERSON: I said that there was an understanding—and you know that. Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has form, because she said that she had had only one phone conversation with Ralph Blewitt and in fact she had two. So she has form in these matters.
Ms Julie Bishop: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order has to be relevance to this set of questions on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He is talking about the AWU slush fund.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Trade has the call. I remind the Minister for Trade that there was a set of questions. It is entirely up to the minister how he answers but keep it relevant.
Dr EMERSON: Absolutely. Directly relevant to the question about our relations with Indonesia is the behaviour of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in seeking to create an impression that there was an understanding between the Indonesian government and the coalition about towing back boats. There is no such understanding and there was no such understanding. That has been completely denied at all relevant levels of the Indonesian government.
In relation to Korea, I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows that the two remaining issues there are in relation to the schedule for reducing the import tariff on beef and, secondly, investor state dispute settlement provisions. The Australian government does not agree with the insertion of investor-state dispute settlement procedures. I know from the public record that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that the opposition does agree, on a case-by-case basis. That means that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if the coalition ever form government, would be quite willing to constrain the capacity of the Australian government to regulate, for example, coal-seam methane projects on farms in Australia.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Dr EMERSON: So she may like to check with Senator Barnaby Joyce and other National party members whether they in fact agree with being constrained in environmental regulation and health regulation, such as the plain packaging of cigarettes. The coalition said they supported the government's plain packaging measures, but they would implement investor-state dispute settlement provisions that will hobble the Australian government's attempts—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Dr EMERSON: and measures to implement the plain packaging of cigarettes. So let the Australian public decide whether it agrees with investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which the coalition support, or whether it does not, which is the position of the Labor government. In respect of the impact on Mr Farley's operations, I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know Mr Farley very well and that she could have that conversation with him.
In relation to Japan, I met their agriculture minister at the OECD just a couple of days ago. We are still talking about a couple of the critical agricultural products. We do need a commercially meaningful offer in relation to high-quality beef—so-called chilled beef, alternatively known as grain fed beef—and the government of Japan is considering that request. (Time expired)
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:36): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I ask that the minister take the answers to our questions on notice and get back to us before the parliamentary recess. Our questions are on foreign aid. In December 2012 and now, again, in May 2013, the Gillard government has hijacked two separate amounts of $375 million from the foreign aid budget, in the process making Australia not only the third largest recipient of Australian foreign aid but also the fastest growing recipient of Australian foreign aid, to the tune of the $750 million announced, within six months. Minister, what criteria were applied in determining that that diverted amount would be $375 million? Why was it not $475 million or $275 million?
On 13 May, Senator Bob Carr undertook to provide information about the impact of the appropriation to DIAC, under Australia's aid program, in the financial year 2013-14. When will this information be publicly released? In Senate estimates last week, DIAC indicated that it does anticipate that all of the recently re-prioritised $375 million will in fact be spent. What will happen to that money if it is not spent? Will it be returned to AusAID or will it simply be returned to consolidated revenue?
Minister, can you also confirm whether or not all of the $375 million in re-prioritised money from the financial year 2012-13 has in fact been spent by AusAID? I note in your response dated 5 February 2013 to my question on notice No. 1337 that DIAC's CFO should have reported and signed off on assistance expenditure for developing countries to AusAID via a six-monthly survey, which in turn would have verified this expenditure against reporting directives. Could you please confirm for me the following: has AusAID received any signed-off reports from the CFO of DIAC verifying assistance expenditure for developing countries; if not, why not? What is AusAID's schedule for these recent CFO sign-offs from AusAID and from all other Australian government agency assistance expenditure for developing countries? Can you also provide an update on the progress in implementing the NGO accreditation reform process. When is it scheduled to be completed?
Please provide an update on progress in implementing the whole-of-government uniform standards for the planning, delivering, monitoring and reporting of official development assistance? When is it scheduled to be committed and when will they be implemented? The AusAID Director-General reported to additional Senate estimates in February this year that they are due to be completed by the end of the financial year. Is that still on track, and will they be used in the coming financial year 2013-14 for all agencies to report their expenditure of ODA?
Could the minister also give an update of the progress of the railway project in Phnom Penh? When is the completion date? Is the project on schedule; and what is the total cost?
I also refer to the Pacific women's solution initiative that was costed at $320 million that Mr Baxter admitted was now money for the program in estimates in October 2012. Will the minister detail how the reprioritisation of $750 million has impacted on that particular initiative?
Also, I refer to the recommendation on the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, regarding the need to focus on medical research. What allocation has been made in the financial year 2013-14 to start this process?
Can the minister also answer questions on the Public Service efficiency dividend with regard to budget measures not resulting in a reduction in the number of investigations carried out by AusAID into the allegations of fraud and corruption in the Australian aid program. How many cases of fraud and corruption in the Australian aid program have been reported this financial year? How many investigations are currently active; and how many reported cases in 2012-13 have been upheld following investigation? Is every case officially investigated? How many people currently work in the AusAID risk management and fraud control branch? Is this more or less than the previous financial year? Is the branch's current budget more or less than it received in the previous financial year? How much money has been lost in the 2013-14 as a result of fraud and corruption; and how many reported cases of fraud and corruption were made against aid based staff overseas? Is this more or less (Time expired)
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:42): I will continue to seek to answer some of the questions raised by the previous member. In relation to Japan there has been a 25 per cent depreciation of the Japanese currency against the Australian dollar in the last six months and the fact is that such a depreciation does, against the Australian dollar, impose again a very heavy burden on Australian manufacturing, including on the automotive industry—and of course we have seen one consequence of the high dollar being Ford's decision to leave Australia in October of 2016.
I note that the coalition has criticised the government over that decision claiming that there is a $400 dollar per car impost from the carbon price—that is completely false; it is closer to $50, so we have this misrepresentation of the truth by the coalition again. If we are looking at support for Australian manufacturing, next year the coalition has pledged to halve support for the automotive industry in this country, which would lead to the destruction of the Australian automotive industry.
In respect of the question about sticking points in the negotiations with China, there are actually negotiations this week. A key sticking point is this: at this stage China is seeking an increase in the Foreign Investment Review Board's screening threshold for private companies and state owned enterprises from zero in relation to state owned enterprises and $240-odd million in relation to private companies to one billion dollars. The coalition's policy is not to increase those thresholds at all but to cut the threshold for private Chinese investment from $240-odd million to $15 million. The effect of that, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, is to kill the Australia-China FTA stone dead. And indeed the Leader of the Opposition went to China specifically to tell them that there are particular forms of Chinese investment that would not be welcome and would be rarely approved.
Again, we do not need lectures about foreign investment from China into Australia. We welcome it, subject to it being in the national interest. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been unable or unwilling to rein in Senator Barnaby Joyce, now the candidate for New England, who has been running around saying the Chinese will take over, buy up all our land and send cheap Chinese labour here—all this hysterical economic Hansonism. I would have hoped that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have dedicated herself to trying to prevent this damage to the relationship between Australia and China through the crazy rhetoric of Senator Barnaby Joyce.
In relation to the questions asked by the member for Brisbane, I will not commit to getting answers from the department to all of those questions between now and when parliament recesses in late June. That would be just about all the department ever did. If the member were serious about getting answers to questions then the member would have tailored the questions and limited them to the extent that it would be reasonable to expect the department to provide answers to them. She has decided not to do that, and therefore I will not give that commitment.
In relation to the overseas development assistance budget, this budget boosts Australia's overseas aid to a record $5.7 billion in 2013-14. That is an increase of around $500 million, or 9.6 per cent. This is the highest the aid budget has ever been in dollar terms. We remain committed to increasing the aid budget to 0.5 per cent of gross national income, but we have moved that target out by one year given the very substantial write-downs in revenue.
Opposition members interjecting—
Dr EMERSON: I hear interjections complaining about that. Again, we would be happy to have the coalition book up, through the PEFO process, any indication that they would bring that forward. The fact is that under the coalition the aid budget never reached 0.3 per cent and was usually under 0.25 per cent, and here we are at 0.37 per cent.
Again, in relation to questions about refugees, this year—2013-14—we will report up to $375 million for basic sustenance for refugees waiting to have their claims heard in Australia. It is legitimate aid delivered in accordance with OECD guidelines, consistent with the practice of other OECD countries. By way of example, the following expenditure was reported for refugee expenses in 2011. (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Treasury Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $4,621,958,000
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:47): As we begin on the Treasury portfolio I note, having watched the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness deal with his set of estimates in this place, that he took the questions for 45 minutes and did not seek to have the time taken up by any of his colleagues to come along and waste time. I certainly hope that the Assistant Treasurer will be following the practice of the minister for trade. As you know, Deputy Speaker, it has been a tradition in this place that these estimates take place so the opposition can ask questions of the minister. The Assistant Treasurer has allotted, I think, just 30 minutes of the one hour, and we sincerely hope that he is not going to seek to avoid scrutiny by having his own backbenchers waste half of that time and provide only 15 minutes. We would commend to him the approach of the minister for trade, who did not arrange for any of his colleagues to come in and waste his time.
I would like to take the Assistant Treasurer to the budget bottom line. He would be well aware, of course, from helping put together these budgets, that after posting a budget deficit of nearly $44 billion in the 2011-12 year the Treasurer announced that the budget would return to surplus within one year. I would direct the Assistant Treasurer to the fact that he went further: when we had these estimates last year, he was in the process of sending out a newsletter to his electorate where he said, 'We've delivered a surplus on time as promised.'
What I want to know from the Assistant Treasurer is—assuming he knows that was a completely false statement, because you cannot say you have delivered anything until the end of the financial year—what action he has taken since then and whether he is taking any action in his post-budget newsletter this year on that very issue. Within that same newsletter, as well as talking about a number of other budget issues, he talked about increased family payments through family tax A. Can I ask whether he has informed his constituents that that promise was broken and it has not gone ahead in the budget? But could he firstly answer why he—we assume intentionally—put out a false statement, paid for by taxpayers' money, saying that a surplus had been delivered when he knew full well that that was not the case?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (16:50): I point out to the member in response to his very serious concerns about the availability of time for questions that at least a minute was wasted by him talking about concerns he might have about other members having legitimate questions that they might want to come into this place and ask. Of course, every member who is elected by their constituency to represent them would have an expectation that their member, regardless of political persuasion, will take an interest in the budget process and certainly the consideration-in-detail stage of the appropriations bills. As to whether others will ask questions, that is a matter for them as they seek to represent their community. I know those on the other side sometimes put together a bit of a roster, where they send people into bat. It seems as though we have the member for Casey and the member for Higgins today. I welcome that because, having seen their contributions in the past, I am not all that concerned about what might be coming our way.
I am delighted that the member for Casey takes such a keen interest in my newsletters. It has been said to me on occasions that people do not read those newsletters. I am refreshed to know that the member for Casey has travelled several hundred kilometres in fact in order to make sure that he does not miss the important information that is disseminated in my latest correspondence as I send that out to the community. The member for Casey will know, of course, that the revenue situation that the government faces is an incredibly challenging one.
Whilst those opposite seek to minimise the significance of what this country is facing in terms of revenue write-downs, the fact remains that we have seen substantial write-downs in revenues. Those opposite will say, 'No; revenue is higher today than it was last year,' and that is true. But, for an economy growing at the speed that our economy is growing and with all of the other indicators being where they are, you would be expecting a greater share of revenue to be collected. That is the reality that we confront. Of course, we would like to have been able to return the budget to surplus faster than we are going to be able to do.
Mr Tony Smith: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the minister is now halfway through his allotted time and—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Casey will resume his seat. There is no point of order.
Mr Tony Smith: There is a point of order on relevance. He was asked a specific—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Casey will resume his seat. I cannot direct any member in this place to answer a particular question. This is a place where we are debating the appropriation bill and each member has five minutes for questions or a statement on their relevant portfolio. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr BRADBURY: The point I was making—and it goes very much to the question that was asked—goes to the issue of revenue write-downs and the impact that that has had on the capacity of the government to return the budget to surplus in the timely fashion that we had expected. Of course, this budget sets out forecasts in terms of when we hope to return the budget to surplus, and that is a couple of years down the track. But I make this point to the member for Casey: our tax to GDP ratio is sitting at about 21.5 per cent of GDP. If the member for Casey believes that the opposition would be able to return the budget to surplus any faster than the government is seeking to do—
Mr Tony Smith interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: I am happy to talk about newsletters. In fact, I am surprised that those opposite would want to talk about the distribution of newsletters in my electorate given the shameful contribution in the past seeking not just to mislead people in a very provocative way to do so in a way that was seeking to incite hatred. I am talking about the pamphlets that were distributed by your then colleague and various others in relation to the so-called Lindsay leaflet scandal. So when it comes to these ridiculous claims about pamphlets, I would have thought that you would be the last people that would want to come forward and make those claims. We stand very much behind the record of what we have achieved. (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:55): I have been in the parliament now for nearly nine years and since the Labor government came to power in 2007 I have to say I have watched budgets being brought down in some rather interesting economic times, particularly globally. I watched budgets in the heart of the global financial crisis, in the threat of a possible breakup of the euro, the US fiscal cliff, whether there would be a double dip—budget after budget in really quite volatile global economic circumstances, and we have seen the global economy struggle quite a bit in the last few years. Now we have a persistently high dollar which is putting pressure on a lot of manufacturers in Australia. We have saving levels for consumers cutting back to normal, which is also withdrawing cash from the local economy. One could say we have a fiscal environment that is a little more challenging than it was in the precrisis period due to weaker nominal GDP growth, a fall in the tax share of GDP and a challenging environment for most of the non-mining sector. The government has a lot of work to do to ensure fiscal sustainability and is doing that by achieving budget surpluses on average over the medium term, keeping tax as a share of GDP below the 2007-08 average and improving the government net financial worth over the medium term.
On top of those things, which are incredibly important, the government is focusing on supporting jobs and growth in the short term. Again this is incredibly important. I point to the success of the government during the worst of the global financial crisis in keeping three per cent of my workforce in work on the school halls and public housing build alone, an incredible contribution to the families in my electorate.
In addition to those things, we are also moving ahead on some major enhancements such as the National Plan for School Improvement and DisabilityCare and critical infrastructure. We hear debate in the community from time to time about whether or not those things should be done at this moment. About a month ago I heard representatives from the opposition saying that we should delay some of those things until times were better. That is an interesting comment. I am going to ask the Assistant Treasurer to comment on those things. Why is it important while maintaining a responsible budget to support jobs and growth in the short term? Why is it also important at this time to undertake those important long-term structural decisions to fund initiatives such as disability care and school funding reform?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (16:58): I thank the member for Parramatta for that question. It is a very insightful one and it goes to the heart of what this budget has been about. The member for Parramatta is right to point to the strength of this government's economic record. If you compare the Australian economy today to where we were before the GFC, we are now 13 per cent larger. There is no advanced economy that has achieved growth levels throughout that period of 13 per cent. I hear those opposite regularly try and make the claim that this is a government that is not interested in growing the pie. Well, this pie is bigger than anyone else's pie in terms of the way it has grown over the last few years. It has grown and grown and is 13 per cent larger. Countries like the UK are not even back to zero, not even back to where they were in terms of the size of their economy before the GFC. We are now 13 per cent larger. So I will not be lectured by those opposite when it comes to questions of growth and growing the national pie. Our pie is certainly growing.
When it comes to jobs, I make the point that I have heard in recent times the Leader of the Opposition—and I know the member for Casey was pretty fixated on this question of pamphlets—and I might take the opportunity to reflect upon the Leader of the Opposition's pamphlet that seems to adorn him at every press conference. He stands up in front of the camera and brandishes this blue pamphlet—
Ms O'Dwyer: You should read it.
Mr BRADBURY: You should read it.
Ms O'Dwyer: You should read it.
Mr BRADBURY: In fact, you should read it. I think, when I read it last, it said: 'Interest rates will always be low. We will return the budget to surplus so that interest rates can be low.' The only problem with that argument is that the shadow Treasurer is out there saying, on the one hand, that interest rates are at emergency levels.
Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this has nothing to do with the question that was put by the member for Parramatta.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): There is no point of order. The member for Higgins will resume her seat. The Assistant Treasurer.
Mr BRADBURY: This is relevant to both the member for Parramatta and the member for Casey. Stop denying your colleague the opportunity to have his questions answered. I am sure he wants to hear about his leader parading around with this ridiculous pamphlet at every opportunity. Somehow it is meant to add some credibility to his argument; standing in front of the camera with this pamphlet under his chin. The pamphlet tells you that they will return the budget to surplus faster than the government and, in doing that, they will get interest rates to be even lower than they are at the moment. Yet, when interest rates were cut on the most recent occasion, the shadow Treasurer was out there saying: 'This is terrible. Emergency lows. Interest rates are so low. The economy is tanking.' We are growing; we are 13 per cent larger.
On the question of jobs, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'In six years I will create a million jobs.' We have already done that. We have almost created a million jobs, 960,000 jobs in the last five and a half years. We have done that at a time when tens of millions of jobs have been lost around the global economy. The reason they do not want to talk about this is that when it actually came to the crunch, the global financial crisis, they were not prepared to walk up and support the stimulus measures that we put in place. And that will be forever a stain on their record when it comes to economic credibility. Without the stimulus that was provided—the sort of destruction that would have occurred in our labour market, the sort of destruction to capital that would have occurred, the sort that we would not yet have recovered from—there would be wreckage right across this country. In fact, as a result of what we managed to do, the economy has continued to grow and jobs have been created.
In framing this budget, we have taken the view that, whilst we have been able to bring about one of the biggest and fastest consolidations of federal finances—and the member opposite referred to what the deficit was in the previous year—of the sort that we never, ever saw when they were in office, and at the same time the economy continues to grow and we continue to create jobs. That is what we are about: jobs and growth.
At the same time the member for Parramatta makes the very salient point that it is not enough to just deliver an economy that has all of those strong fundamentals; it is about putting in place the long-term investments our country needs. She alluded to the fact that some opposite say that now is not the right time to do it. Do you know what? When they had what they considered to be the best of times, they never, ever made any of these investments. In fact, they squandered those opportunities; they did not invest in education, they did not invest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They squandered money and at the end of the day— (Time expired)
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
Treasury
Proposed expenditure, $4,621,958,000
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (17:04): The Assistant Treasurer will be aware that I have long taken a strong interest in the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, so it will not be a surprise to him that today I wish to draw the attention of the Assistant Treasurer to some information that was recently provided in the public sphere as a result of the freedom of information documents that were released.
Firstly, let me remind the Assistant Treasurer that since 2001 the Reserve Bank board has aimed to keep the Reserve Bank reserve funds balance to at least 10 per cent of the assets at risk. This was a level that they deemed appropriate for being able to absorb losses where required. As the Assistant Treasurer would also be aware, over the past two years the balance has fallen well below that target. Now unlike typical banks, the Reserve Bank Act provides no recourse for the Reserve Bank to seek a capital injection from its shareholder, which is of course the government. This means that the bank can only increase its capital by retained earnings.
We heard earlier this year at the Standing Committee on Economics hearing that the Governor of the Reserve Bank conceded that he had provided advice to the Treasurer that a dividend of half a billion dollars should not be paid to the government, but should be instead retained and transferred into the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, as should all of the profit made by the Reserve Bank. The Governor wrote to the Treasurer on 13 July 2012 advising that the RBA's 2011-12 accounting profit was estimated at around $1.1 billion. The bank sought approval at that time to transfer all of the bank's distributable earnings to the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. The Treasurer agreed to this initially, in the first advice that was provided. In the 201 annual report, the Reserve Bank Governor said: 'the prudent course will be to apply future earnings to rebuilding'—the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund—'before the resumption of dividend payments.' Advice was provided to the Treasurer by the Treasury and by the Reserve Bank Governor on 6 September 2011, 27 October 2011, 20 April 2012, 3 August 2012 and 24 August 2012. The Treasurer ignored the advice that was provided by both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank Governor.
My question to the Assistant Treasurer is this: does he concede that the Treasurer, in ignoring the explicit advice from the Reserve Bank Governor, has been highly irresponsible? Or are the Reserve Bank Governor and the Treasury wrong?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:07): Of course the Treasurer has always been responsible in all of his actions, and this is a responsible budget—not only a responsible budget that ensures that we are promoting jobs and growth but also a responsible budget that makes the necessary investments in the future. That is of critical importance, because when people look at the strength of the Australia economy compared to other advanced economies, one of the things that they focus in on is the fact that we have been growing. If we want to be able to continue to grow into the future, we need to be investing in education. There is no greater productivity-enhancing agenda than to invest in education. That is one of the aspects of this budget that we are most proud of. Not only have we made space to invest in education but also we have invested in disability care to ensure that all Australians have access to an insurance scheme of the sort that they have not previously had access to when it comes to disability.
In terms of the questions that the member opposite poses, I find it interesting that in the context of a budget where there have been over $40 billion worth of savings, the member opposite has not chosen to ask about any of them. The reason why the member opposite has chosen to not ask about any of them is that this was such an impressive budget—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: that those opposite have embraced all of the measures contained within it, certainly in relation to the savings measures. And I hear the chortling—and that is something that the members for Casey and Higgins do well; they chortle well—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: To the member for Bradfield: I have never seen you chortle in all the time I have been observing you.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): Order! There needs to be less conversation across the chamber.
Mr BRADBURY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Symon; I think it is important that we keep the members opposite on a tight leash. I think it is relevant that those opposite have not sought to talk about the savings measures because the Leader of the Opposition said that they were so effective and so impressive that they are seeking to—
Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, on a point of order: I asked a very clear, very direct, very simple question which perhaps the Assistant Treasurer does not understand—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins will resume her seat. There is no point of order.
Mr BRADBURY: Not only have the opposition not entertained questions around savings measures; equally, they have sought to avoid questions around monetary policy and interest rates. It does not surprise me at all that they would avoid these questions. Having run many an election campaign saying that interest rates would always be lower under the Liberal Party—we all remember that, the 2004 campaign in particular—we now find ourselves with interest rates that are lower than they ever were under the Liberal Party and, all of a sudden, they want to tell us that low interest rates are not a good thing; they are a bad thing. I want them to tell that to the families out in the community with mortgages of $300,000 who are paying $5½ thousand a year less in interest repayments as a result of the cuts to interest rates. Those cuts have ensured that benefits have flowed to families right around our community. Those who once proclaimed themselves the party of low interest rates—they even champion them in that silly little pamphlet I was talking about earlier—come forward, now that the interest rates are cut, and talk about how terrible this is because the economy is tanking. Record-low interest rates are now a bad thing.
There are those of us who have memories long enough to know we have heard it all before, and we will continue to make long-term investments in the economy, because, if we want a stronger economy, a smarter nation and a fairer society, these are the sort of things we will need to do. (Time expired)
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:12): I want to ask the Assistant Treasurer about something that has been the subject of a bit of commentary lately in technology sector. That is, namely, the expectation almost of some people that multinational corporations with deep pockets can and do minimise their tax liability—but at what cost to domestic taxpayers? I mention two companies, Apple and Google, simply because they are two of the largest technology names around that have been discussed, but it is not exclusively about them. I note there is an issues paper, for which submissions just recently closed, called Implications of the modern global economy for the taxation of multinational enterprises. I will just go to a few things in that paper before I go to my questions. It says:
International tax reform is increasingly on the agenda of G20 Finance Ministers and Leaders.
I note that Australia will be chairing the G20 next year, so it is probably an item that Australia will be taking an interest in on that basis. It also says that there are a 'range of possible policy approaches' in response to the issue—in particular, and I have been seeing this figure a fair bit, the 'double Irish-Dutch sandwich' as one of the mechanisms for minimising tax. The question put in the paper—
Ms O'Dwyer: What's your question?
Ms ROWLAND: We'll get to it. You are looking silly. Shush. One of the questions in the issues paper is:
Should Australia care if tax is avoided in another country?
And there is quite an interesting discussion there about the double Irish-Dutch sandwich. It says:
… where a tax treaty partner is not exercising its right to tax this is conceptually equivalent to having a tax treaty with a tax haven.
That is a pretty serious thing. The consultation question for this part of the paper is:
Views are sought on the extent to which another country not exercising its right to tax should be a matter of concern to Australia.
There are a number of other items addressed here, but I think we can all agree on a couple of general principles in our corporate tax system—that we want it to be fair, competitive and sustainable.
I know that there are a number of mechanisms that were looked at by previous governments, in closing these sorts of tax loopholes. I know that the Commissioner of Taxation has identified a number of aggressive tax-minimisation flaws, where they are exploited to take advantage of our system, and some of them are addressed in the paper I just referred to. I do believe, and I think the public share this concern, that profit shifting by MNCs is a problem that affects the tax system of all countries. It is not exclusive to Australia, but people are rightly concerned about these multibillion- even trillion-dollar entities that are avoiding—perhaps legitimately, if they are using effective tax loopholes that are already there—or minimising their tax liability.
My question is: what is the government doing to protect Australia's corporate tax base from erosion and profit shifting, in light of not only multinational corporations but also ones that have been in the media and are of particular concern when we talk about some of the largest companies in the world? What are we doing and what are our options? I know that the submissions only recently closed on this discussion paper but it is proposed to have responses detailed very soon, so I would be interested in that aspect.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:16): I thank the member for Greenway for her contribution. I would inform the House that this budget contains $4.2 billion worth of measures to protect the corporate-tax base and to close corporate-tax loopholes. That is a matter that the government has been diligently working towards over a period of time. This is not the first package of measures that we have brought forward. We have previously introduced measures on transfer pricing: the first phase, which has now passed through the parliament; we introduced a bill that contained the second phase of our transfer-pricing reforms; and also changes to part IVA, the general anti-avoidance provisions.
I make the point that on each occasion, when we have brought forward these measures to close down on corporate tax loopholes, those opposite have voted against the measures. It really does beg the question: at a time when we are facing what those opposite would have you believe is a budget emergency, why on earth would we be allowing some of the most profitable companies operating in our economy to take advantage of these loopholes and avoid paying their fair share of tax? It does not make sense. It is not fair. It is not fair to their competitors who do not shift profits and pay their fair share of tax. It is not fair to families, pensioners and small businesses around this country who pay their fair share of tax—and ultimately end up paying a higher share of tax as a result of the lack of contribution of those who should be paying more.
The member referred to the double-Irish-Dutch sandwich. That is one particular arrangement. But there are some complex questions that relate to intangibles and transfer pricing generally that need to be tackled in a multilateral way. What we have done through the budget, in addressing some of these matters in a unilateral way, is tackle debt-lending practices. To be clear on these practices, one particular scenario that was brought to our attention by the Commissioner of Taxation involves a mature company here in Australia that is a subsidiary. Its parent is offshore, on another continent. The offshore parent wants to invest in a target company that is in a third continent and, rather than the parent acquiring shares directly in the target company, they will loan money to the mature Australian operation. The Australian operation will then acquire shares in the third entity and, as a result of that, the dividends coming back to the Australian entity will be tax exempt. Then a deduction will be claimed on the interest expense incurred by the mature Australian operation and the money will be effectively shifted back to the parent company—all along achieving a tax deduction here in Australia but with no tax being paid.
Silence is what we have heard from those opposite when it comes to these practices. I see the member for Casey shifting uncomfortably in his chair, because he was left in the chamber to do the dirty work because the member for North Sydney, who had carriage of that bill for the opposition, was out there blogging. As a consequence of his blogging he could not be in the chamber and the poor old member for Casey had to come in and do the dirty work. He had to get up and vote against these new measures to introduce new reforms for transfer pricing and to tackle general anti-avoidance through tightening up part 4A.
Now the irony of this was that when the member for North Sydney was given the opportunity in his Press Club address to indicate whether or not he felt our existing transfer pricing rules were adequate, he said, 'No, they are not adequate.' They are not adequate, yet the proposals that we have brought forward to strengthen these rules he has voted against. He did not vote against the last lot because he was blogging, but he voted against the first round, and he sent the member for Casey in to do his dirty work on the second round of reforms.
Now, there is still hope for the opposition, because there is always an opportunity with bills that are now before the Senate for the members of the opposition to have a change of heart and to take a tougher line on tax avoidance. I encourage them to do that because I think that is what many people within their communities would expect. (Time expired)
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (17:21): Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, just before I begin my contribution, I have a question to you. The time allotted for this section is from 4.45 to 5.45, and it comprises hearing from the Assistant Treasurer, as we are doing, and from the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. It is now approach 25 past five. We have not seen the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. I am wondering what recourse you can take or whether, if a minister is so arrogant, they can simply ignore this chamber.
Mr Bradbury: I will be taking questions on behalf of Minister Shorten. I am happy to proceed; was that your contribution?
Mr TONY SMITH: No. You can resume your seat and we will get on with it. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Assistant Treasurer reveals now, after more than 40 minutes of questioning, that he is going to take questions on behalf of the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. His name is there on the list along with every other minister's name, and this arrogant minister decides not to turn up. And you compound it by not informing this chamber that you are going to answer questions on his behalf. This is absolutely unbelievable. It shows the public the complete lack of respect for the parliament by both of these ministers.
You could have informed this chamber at the start. Were you aware of that at the start, Assistant Treasurer?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): The member for Casey will desist from using the word 'you' as it reflects on the chair.
Mr TONY SMITH: I do not want to do that, certainly not when you are in the chair, Deputy Speaker. It is absolutely unbelievable, and it just shows the height of arrogance from both the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. It is one of two things: the Assistant Treasurer was aware of that at the start and deliberately decided to conceal it from members on this side, or he has got some email while he has been here to say that he has to cover for the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, who will be the only minister listed who decides not to turn up. It is not good enough, and time should be provided for the ministers listed. If they do not turn up—if they are so disorganised or if they decide that they simply cannot be bothered—time should be allocated. This is not good enough. It has not happened before. Where ministers have bee unable to turn up at least the minister at the table does the right thing and informs the chamber. This speaks volume not just about the arrogance of these two ministers but about their utter incompetence.
Given that we now know, at 25 past five, that the member for Lindsay is going to take questions on behalf of the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, and my colleague the member for Bradfield is here for that purpose, I will end my contribution. If you want to do anything to repair it at least let him get the call.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Assistant Treasurer. No? The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the member for Robertson.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (17:24): One of the great things about coming from the part of the world that I do is that it is home to considerable innovation, and the NBN rolling into town is providing an enhancement to that innovation for local businesses. In my movement around the community I see how seriously they take their role in being leaders in employment in our local area. They are particularly interested in making sure that they contribute to the country by paying a fair amount of tax and that they manage their pay-as-you-go responsibilities for their employees in an ethical and powerful way that contributes to the benefit of this country. My local businesses are particularly interested in the advantages that are offered through the most recent budget. There are some very important points I would be interested in hearing about from the minister, particularly small business. In the regions and areas like mine small business is no doubt the greatest employer of local people. It is very important that those businesses continue to grow, because as we grow their capacity in business we grow the number of jobs in our area and, indeed, we continue to grow the taxation for the country and from that the benefits that flow throughout the community. I am very interested in hearing from the minister on those points.
I would also like to ask the minister if he could explain a little more about the tax reform road map and the principles that underpin that. If he could explain it in a way Australians can understand—almost create a metanarrative—so that it is not just about a mechanism or the management of particular types of taxation. It is rather about a vision for Australia, something that creates a holistic framework that accounts for the way whole of the taxation system is structured. I am particularly interested in the minister's response to the challenges that face families as they are looking to manage their jobs in small business and the cost-of-living pressures against their own responsibilities to their families. There has been a significant degree of reform within that framework that I hope the minister might speak to. I am certainly interested in the tax cuts that have been delivered over the first four years to boost incentives for people in my electorate to work hard and received the benefits of that work.
We do hear a lot of conversation in public places about red tape being a major concern. I must say as a small business owner operator—my husband now largely has those responsibilities—the transformation to our business when the GST came in was overwhelming. In fact we had to become tax collectors along with millions of other Australians. I understand red tape, Minister, very well as a result of that experience—in terms of the ongoing management of that and the additional costs to people. Cutting red tape and making changes to make things more efficient for businesses is absolutely vital. I know you have that at the centre of many of your concerns. I would like some comment on that if I may. The thing that seems to be of greatest concern to those in my area is the very significant difference between the plan that is offered by those opposite and the plan and the projects that are in place for superannuation and the tax treatment of low-income earners in particular. In my electorate there are some 23,000 workers who are on $37,000 or less. That is a significant number of the 100,000 people I represent. Spread across the country, it means two-thirds of these workers are women and one-third are men on low incomes. I expect the policy of this side is going to create very different life outcomes not just now but in the future. I would like to hear from the minister about that element of the tax reform that we have been able see in recent times.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:29): I thank the member for Robertson for her questions and note the wide-ranging nature of her contribution. I will try and address as many of the elements of what she has raised there as I can. Obviously, we are very proud of the record that we have when it comes to tax reform. It is often said erroneously that we have not picked up the cudgels when it comes to the Henry reforms, but it is worth noting that more than 40 of the measures proposed by the Henry review have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.
Of course, when it comes to tax, we think it is important to ensure that, in particular, those large and profitable multinationals that are not paying their fair share of tax are required to pay their fair share. That is why I spoke earlier about the corporate tax integrity package. But equally we think it is important to lower the tax burden on small business. That is why we have put in place the instant asset write-off, which has been a significant development for small businesses. In fact, I see the member for Corangamite here in the chamber. I had the opportunity to visit his electorate with him and to talk to a cafe owner at a beautiful spot down at—
Mr Cheeseman: Frontbeach.
Mr BRADBURY: Frontbeach. It was a fantastic—
An honourable member: What was it called?
Mr BRADBURY: These are the big questions coming from those opposite! I am glad you have a full hour for this, because when you get down to those sorts of questions as your last line of defence it shows that there is not much of a critique of the budget.
When it comes to small business, we have put in place the instant asset write-off. Those opposite voted against it. It should be a source of shame to them that they voted against a tax break for small business. They say they are the party for small business, but, as the member for Robertson pointed out, they were the party that introduced the GST, with all of the administrative burden that that slugged small business with. In fact, I still get all the letters from small businesses struggling to handle all of the extra red tape and regulation that they were strangled with. I thought they were going to 'unchain people's hearts', but instead they ended up chaining them to a desk to do the paperwork involved in their business activity statements.
Anyway, the No. 1 concern that I hear from small business is actually concern about paperwork, and at the top of that list is the business activity statement. In putting in place the instant asset write-off, we have eliminated the need for some paperwork, because, for those assets below the value of $6½ thousand, there is no need to keep depreciation schedules. You can write it off in the first year. Of course, that delivers a cash flow benefit to the business, but it also eliminates red tape. That is something this government has been working towards.
You might ask the question: why on earth would an opposition that say that they support small business want to come into office and rip away a tax concession for small business and in the process load them up with more red tape and more paperwork? It is a good question, and I have not heard a decent answer to it. Of course, those opposite have been parading themselves around as the party of lower taxes. The tax-to-GDP ratio is 21.5 per cent of GDP at the moment; it was 23.7 per cent of GDP when they left office, when the member for Higgins was working for the Treasurer. Indeed, I should make the point about those corporate tax loopholes that many of them were put in place with the consolidation regime and the thin capitalisation regime that were put in place by her boss when he was around. We are now left to clean it up and to try and tidy these arrangements up to make sure that these companies are paying their fair share.
But the opposition came into the parliament and they voted against the tax break for small business. They now say they are going to repeal it. At the same time they say, 'We're for lower taxes,' but they have a proposal for a monster tax for business: a paid parental leave tax. I know that both members opposite have been very quiet on this issue, because down in their heart of hearts they do not agree with this. They know it is an unfair impost on employers, and, if they look into their iPads and look down into their books to avoid making eye contact because of the shame that they are presently feeling about this horrendous policy—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: At least the member for Mitchell—he does not speak up much, but, when he does, he crystallises the thought of many on the back bench on that side. So much for the modest members, so modest that they have been missing in action on this vital policy debate, missing in action when it comes to this $20 billion tax that business will be— (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (17:34): I would like to ask the Minister Representing the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation—as we are now told that he is—some questions about the Trio fraud in which $176 million was defrauded from over 6,000 investors, including a significant number of my constituents. In fact, my constituents who invested in the ARP Growth Fund—together with others from elsewhere in Australia who invested in that fund—lost, on average, $700,000. Only one local foot soldier, Mr Shawn Richard, has been jailed in this regrettable episode. The international mastermind is widely believed to be Mr Jack Flader, and there are others involved but it seems they have not been pursued by the Australian regulatory authorities.
A parliamentary committee investigation and report made a series of unanimous recommendations, I am pleased to say, including that there ought to be an investigation into likely criminal activity in association with the Trio matter. In responding recently to this report the minister released, amongst other things, a review conducted by Treasury, which put a whitewash over what had happened. The Treasury review says that ASIC took regulatory reaction in relation to Trio capital within a short period of time but, similarly, once sufficient evidence was available, APRA acted quickly to freeze Trio capital assets.
APRA carried out four prudential reviews of Trio between 2005 and 2009. None of those reviews led it to taking any action, a point which APRA officials conceded to me in questioning, when they appeared before the Corporations and Financial Services Committee. The Treasury's report concludes: 'A key finding of this review is that APRA and ASIC carried out their roles and responsibilities appropriately.' Isn't that splendid? That is very good news for all those Australians who lost their retirement savings in the collapse of Trio.
In that regard, I have the following questions: (1) Why did it take you from May 2012, when the parliamentary committee reported, to March 2013 before you provided a response? (2) Why did you describe my constituents and others who invested via self-managed superannuation funds as 'swimming outside the flags' when they were, in fact, investing via product-disclosure statements in managed investment scheme disclosure statements that had been lodged with ASIC, and do you stand by that characterisation? (3) Do you agree with the glowing assessment given by Treasury of the performance of APRA and ASIC, who managed to notice that absolutely nothing was going wrong, for six years, in the period between an existing small, reputable funds manager being taken over by an international criminal syndicate and the whistle finally being blown not by the regulators but by an alert industry participant, who happened to have such sufficient connections within the bureaucracy that he was able finally to get some attention on this matter? (4) Are you satisfied that continuing efforts are being made by ASIC, APRA, the Australian Federal Police and other agencies to investigate the Trio fraud, consistent with the unanimous recommendations of the parliamentary committee? (5) Are you comfortable that we have a situation in which sophisticated international criminals evidently are able to target the retirement savings of Australians and do so with impunity, and if you are not comfortable with it, what are you doing about it?
Mr Fletcher: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. This is consideration in detail. It is not question time.
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (17:39): I rise to ask the minister—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield will give me a chance to speak. He is rising on a point of order, but I will tell the member for Bradfield that this is not question time. This is consideration in detail.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, and the point of order goes to the very purpose of this exercise. The purpose of this exercise is for the government through its executive members to report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield has no point of order and will resume his seat.
Mr CHEESEMAN: I rise tonight—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will resume his seat. The member for Higgins on a point of order.
Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is a farce to have consideration in detail when questions cannot be—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Higgins will resume her seat. I call the member for Corangamite.
Mr CHEESEMAN: Thank you. I rise to ask the minister why it is important to lift superannuation savings of ordinary Australians from nine to 12 per cent. I represent an electorate where many people invest in superannuation through their industry superannuation arrangements and I know within my community that people very much—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will resume his seat. The member for Bradfield on a point of order.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: will the minister commit that he will answer the questions I asked—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield does not have a point of order. He will resume his seat. The member for Corangamite has the call.
Mr CHEESEMAN: Thank you. I know from my electorate when I get out and streetstall, doorknock and talk to my constituency that Australians very much support having their own superannuation that is in place to provide a quality of life when they get to retirement. I also know that the government, which of course I am a member of, has very substantial plans with respect to superannuation, particularly lifting super savings from nine to 12 per cent. When I get out and talk to my constituency, they inform me that they like the approach that the government has adopted, particularly because most Australians like to have really strong superannuation laws in place, laws that they can feel comfortable about and confident in that if they invest in superannuation that the government will support them through very strong legislation.
I also note the government has put in place the MySuper arrangements to ensure that superannuation costs are kept to an absolute minimum, because Australians want to see the money that they invest in superannuation actually going to their retirements, not going towards excessive fees and charges to superannuation schemes, funds in the private sector and the like.
My question is: what are the alternative approaches that may have been raised or suggested in the course of the budget debate, whether it be our budgets or by the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply. Australians want to have very strong superannuation arrangements, and I ask the minister if he could shed further light on some of the plans and processes coming out of the budget around having really strong superannuation so that Australian workers can have dignity when they get to retirement. I think that is a reasonable question and I am deeply disappointed by the tone that the coalition has taken to this debate— (Time expired)
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:44): I thank both the member for Bradfield and the member for Corangamite for their contributions. I thank the member for Bradfield and I know that he has had an ongoing interest in. I make the point that the questions that he asks go to a range of considerations, some of which relate to the prosecution and enforcement activities of some of our key regulators. They not just matters of interest to government but also are matters that can be scrutinised through other parliamentary committees. I know that the member does take advantage of those opportunities to press the respective regulators about their approaches to these matters. I would like to make the point that the government continues to remain sympathetic to those who have lost money as part of this process. It has been a regrettable situation, obviously—and that would perhaps be an understatement in relation to the Trio collapse. We have listened very carefully to the victims, and as a result of that listening we have also been acting, not only in terms of approaches to compensation but also in relation to regulatory reform that is required. In this budget, just to reinforce this point, an additional $15.1 million has been made available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. We recognise the complex nature of investigations of the nature involved here; these are not simple or straightforward matters, but there is a degree of independence and autonomy that our regulators are afforded in order to ensure that our laws are pursued in a robust fashion but also in a fashion that can be said to be above the day-to-day politics of whatever might be occurring for any particular government. So I encourage the member to continue doing what he has done in the past, and that is to raise these matters with the respective regulators. I know that that is a matter which he has certainly been very active in pursuing in the past.
In relation to the member for Corangamite, I thank him for his question, because he points to the strong record of this government in relation to superannuation but also to the horrifying prospect of what we might face if there were to be a change of government. This government—Labor—created superannuation, and at the time the Leader of the Opposition said it was the biggest con job ever foisted on the Australian people. I know he has had a change of heart on a whole range of things in recent times; in fact, I saw an article that he wrote in the paper recently where he was sort of airbrushing out some things that he had said in his most recent tome, which is the Battlelines book. But when it comes to superannuation, nothing has changed. In the same way as when the coalition came into office in 1996—and the member for Mayo will remember this well—after making repeated commitments about how they would proceed with the Keating government's commitments to increase compulsory superannuation, they got in and they chopped it off and they halted it where it was. The member for Mayo might want to contribute to the debate by advising the House of how many increases in compulsory superannuation there were throughout the 11½ years of the Howard government. In fact, to save him the trouble, I will answer the question and make the point that there were none. The coalition have always opposed increases in superannuation. For all the rhetoric that we have heard in recent times about the coalition's concern about the government raiding superannuation, the member for Mayo might like to point out whether or not the reforms that we have proposed will be abandoned if the opposition were to get into office.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: No, no, the reforms in relation to—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): The Assistant Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Mayo on a point of order.
Mr Briggs: I would like to use the opportunity to intervene in the debate, as the same standing orders apply in this chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BRADBURY: In the same way as the coalition did not go ahead with the increases in superannuation in 1996, this so-called deferral by two years is an abandonment. We know that that is what will happen. The coalition will find some excuse in the same way as they found excuses in 1996—because when it comes to the Liberal party, there is always an excuse for why it would take away the opportunity for hard-working Australians—(Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Human Services
Proposed expenditure, $4,025,894,000
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (17:49): I rise to speak on this consideration of detail stage in relation to the Human Services portfolio. I begin my questions, Parliamentary Secretary, by giving a short preamble to them.
This is obviously an extremely important arm of government. It includes agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support Agency, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Australia and Australian Hearing. It is expected to make over $157 billion worth of payments in the next financial year that this budget concerns itself with. In that respect, it is an extremely important agency of government to Australians who rely on receiving their pension, Newstart allowances and Medicare rebates. Whatever the payment relates to, it is very important that this agency be managed properly and not cause too much inconvenience for people if they have interaction with the government payment system.
The former government was committed to some reform and I note the current government has introduced some additional reform in this area to ensure that payments are more effective and more efficient in their delivery. Times have changed since the Commonwealth government first involved itself in making payments. Technologies have changed quite substantially and we now have a range of ways, particularly electronically, of making payments. There will be efficiencies in the future where we can improve the way we make payments and ensure that the Australian taxpayer is not paying more than they need to make. In that sense, this is a very important area.
It is for this reason I was concerned this morning to see that the latest minister Senator McLucas, has not yet received her charter letter. I note she is the sixth minister in six years in this portfolio—we have had four since Prime Minister Gillard came to office. I would have thought that for a minister to not yet have her riding instructions for a portfolio that makes payments worth $157 billion in this budget is a pretty substantial issue.
Parliamentary Secretary, can you confirm that each of the previous ministers received a charter letter and can you advise when the Prime Minister will be delivering the charter letter to the current minister, and will it be any time soon, given that we are 102 days away from an election and a shorter period, some 80 days, away from entering the caretaker period? Is this just another example of a government that is in chaos and has no idea what one hand of government is doing compared with the other?
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (17:53): It is not always that I agree with the member of Mayo, but I do agree with him about the Department of Human Services. The department touches the lives of nearly every Australian, one way or another. One of the great strengths of the department, as the member talked mentioned, is the fact that it has great flexibility to deal with all manner of situations—from distribution of family tax benefits, to child support and to crisis management. The member for Mayo raised what the department does, which I will talk about, and I will deal with the charter issue in a minute.
One of the great achievements of the Department of Human Services is its capacity to make about $144.7 billion in payments in a year. The shadow parliamentary secretary, the member for Mayo, talked about the amount that is in this year's budget. In last year's, it is extraordinary for a department to have had the capacity to make $3.2 billion in payments for child support or family tax benefit payments. The parliament takes 56 million calls from people and sends out about 145 million letters every year.
The member for Mayo talked about the achievements and capabilities of the department, and I think he is correct when he talks about those. For example, one of the things that the member for Mayo probably would not be happy about was the capacity of the Department of Human Services to make the clean energy advance payments of over $1.3 billion to more than six million Australian families, pensioners and other recipients. The member for Mayo's side of politics actually voted against those payments and opposed those payments every step of the way, whereas Australians received those payments through the Department of Human Services to assist them with their cost-of-living pressures and to assist them to meet the challenge in participating in our pricing of carbon—a policy which has proved significantly effective in the reduction of carbon pollution in the atmosphere, on the latest figures.
The member for Mayo is correct that the department is using smarter and faster tools in the 21st century. New ways to deal with Australians' online services are particularly important. He actually mentioned that in his question. There are about 3.8 million Australians currently registered for Centrelink online services, and he raised that point in his question and his comments. About 2.7 million are registered for Medicare online services, and there are about 143,000 registered for child support online services, so that is particularly important. I am glad he raised that in his comments, because that is a particularly important point to make.
The department is also using a number of particularly important things—and the member for Mayo raised that in his questions to us—introducing four new Express Plus smartphone applications. They are aimed at students, job seekers, families and seniors, enabling them to complete many of their most common transactions quickly and easily. I thank him for his dorothy dixer, because it was particularly helpful in relation to that. These apps have been well received. There have been over 563,000 downloads and over 11 million transactions already via the apps. This includes a lot of older Australians. One of the things that I have been so pleased about is the way that older Australians have embraced the seniors app, having completed about 11,000 downloads and about 51,000 transactions.
The member raised issues in relation to a charter, and I noticed that he got very excited about that today in a press release he sent off. I think the responsibilities of the Minister of Human Services are very clear. The member for Mayo talked about the department that the minister has responsibilities for and what it actually does. I think most people know, when they deal with the department, about the range of services and are pleased with the range of services that are there. She is getting on with the job of making sure that Australians get access to the kinds of payments that the member for Mayo mentioned—ensuring that Australians get access to those payments they need to meet their cost-of-living pressures.
I think the member for Mayo and the shadow minister should stop playing politics in relation to this and come clean about their plans to take away jobs, like Campbell Newman and the LNP in Queensland. They should come clean. What public servants in the Department of Human Services do they intend to sack if they get onto the treasury bench? Let us not forget that we have somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 jobs in the gun if the shadow parliamentary secretary loses the 'shadow' before his name. (Time expired)
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (17:58): It is a pleasure to be able to ask some questions of the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General this evening. At the outset I should like to congratulate him on his elevation to the roles. I know that he has obviously been a very committed local member, and I think he will do extremely well. Indeed, he is doing extremely well in the roles.
The questions I would like to inquire about this evening relate to the circumstances of older Australians. I note that the parliamentary secretary has made reference to some of the initiatives already being rolled out for the benefit of senior Australians right across the country, and I am particularly interested in my electorate. I should note for the benefit of members here this evening that there are some 17,600 pensioners and around 1,400 self-funded retirees in the electorate of La Trobe who are already benefiting from a boost to their incomes through pension increases, through tax cuts and through the seniors supplement, so there are very practical ways in which this government is delivering financial support to senior Australians right across the country and certainly in my electorate.
I know that this government has been focused across a range of portfolios—not just Human Services but a range of portfolios—in delivering not only financial independence but actual independence in terms of the choices for retirement living and access to modern communications through the NBN and Broadband for Seniors. All of these things are part of a holistic package of measures which are aimed at ensuring that senior Australians—and with an ageing population, we certainly need to pay increasing regard to the demographic of senior Australians—continue to have a very good quality of life; the kind of quality of life that they deserve; the kind of financial support that they deserve; and the capacity to continue to have a very productive and active life into their senior years.
In my electorate I have been able to speak to many representatives and organisations such as the Emerald U3A—the University of the Third Age—which is all about ensuring that senior Australians continue to take up the opportunities for education that are available to them and continue to be active in our community. I had the opportunity to be with one of our ministers talking about the historic pension increases that this government has delivered and the additional financial support that has been given to senior Australians and self-funded retirees with the Commonwealth healthcare card through the packages of measures that we have advanced over the last five years.
I have also had the opportunity to hear firsthand from pensioners and other seniors in my own electorate through the Knox U3A, as we discussed things like retirement options and aged-care options. It is certainly of interest to them that this government continues to provide such support financially and through other means to that group. Accordingly, this evening I am very pleased to be able to ask the parliamentary secretary to provide a bit more information about the means by which the government—particularly through the Department of Human Services—is supporting older Australians to live better and in a smarter, stronger and fairer future.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (18:01): I thank the member for her question in relation to older Australians. We know that each year over one million older Australians receive aged-care services and by 2050 over 3.5 million Australians are expected to receive aged-care services each year. The Department of Human Services is well and truly involved in that process. This government has actually been a reformist government in the area of aged care. Our Living Longer Living Better package is a $3.7 billion package over five years, and I am pleased to say that legislation introduced into the House is going to make a big difference. The Department of Human Services is involved in that process.
I will talk about the Living Longer Living Better package and what the budget actually does for older Australians. But, in terms of the department's involvement, the Department of Human Services received $322,000 over two years from 2012-13 to implement the changes. That is an important assistance to the department. This package of reforms is about making sure that people have greater control and choice over the aged-care services they need. The single aged-care gateway will be important. The emphasis on home-care packages and a recalibration of aged care towards that bias is important. The funding towards dementia is really important as well. The number of Australians with dementia is forecast to grow from 269,000 to almost a million by 2050. At present 1,500 Australians are diagnosed with dementia every week. The budget provides some significant assistance in that regard by rolling out that package across the country.
There are other areas in which we are making a difference in aged care. One of the initiatives in support of aged care is the idea of supporting seniors who downsize their homes. This is a $112.4 million pilot program to assist age pensioners and other pensioners over pension age who want to downsize their home. It is common for people as they get older to not want a three-, four- or five-bedroom home and to want to downsize because their physical capacity to maintain that home wanes as they get older, particularly in retirement years. This is good initiative which we think will make a difference. What this particular benefit means in the budget is that for pensioners of pension age, who have lived in their home for more than 25 years and want to downsize to a lesser home or benefit, this is probably the transition before they go into what we used to call high care in a residential aged-care facility. Pensioners will be able to put at least 80 per cent of the excess proceeds from the sale of their former home up to a cap of $200,000 into a special account and have it exempt from the pensioner income and assets test. It is expected that about 30,000 Australians will benefit from this trial by receiving a higher pension than would otherwise be the case if the excess sale proceeds were means tested. Of course, the Department of Human Services would take that into consideration.
The member for La Trobe is right when she talks about the federal Labor government's commitment to pensions. Since 2009, and she mentioned this in her question, the maximum rate of pension has gone up by $207 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples combined because of this federal Labor government. I cannot say that those opposite have always supported pension rises. They have on occasions in fairness to them, but on other occasions they have not. One of the other ways that I think we are helping seniors is keeping them connected. I am sure the member has the Broadband for Seniors program in her electorate, as I do in mine. The budget has provided funds here and this is assisted through the department. The 2013-14 budget delivers the Keeping Senior Connected an extra $9.9 million over four years for new technology and training grants for Broadband for Seniors kiosks. These kiosks have been particularly helpful—and you can find them in libraries, aged-care facilities and council chambers. There is even one at the University of Queensland, which is hosting SeniorNet in my electorate. There are about 2,000 internet kiosks for seniors around the country. I am pleased to say that older Australians have made use of that technology. (Time expired)
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (18:07): I go back to the original line of questioning that I was pursuing in relation to the small matter of a charter letter or what is better known as a job description from the Prime Minister to the minister. I was not suggesting to correct the parliamentary secretary that it was somehow Senator McLucas' fault that she had not received her own charter letter. She might draft it for herself and send it to herself, but really it does need to come from the Prime Minister. That has been the tradition of the Westminster system. However, the Deputy Speaker will be aware that, when Senator McLucas took this portfolio, things were a little chaotic on the government side, and we wonder whether part of that chaos and dysfunction was the oversight of a charter letter not being sent. We remember the time in March when we had the minister for immigration resign, the minister for resources resign, the minister for regional development resign, the parliamentary secretary for Pacific islands, who is with us in the chamber, resign. Quite a few people resigned and one of those ministers who resigned was Minister Senator Kim Carr. We understand that Senator Carr had received a charter letter; Senator McLucas has not received a charter letter. Through the chair, Parliamentary Secretary, it does seem that you thought it was a laughing matter or an irrelevancy that the minister would just know what her responsibilities were and would know what pieces of legislation she was responsible for. The purpose of the charter letter is for the Prime Minister to explain to the minister: 'These are the areas that you have responsibility for.' It is a very significant document in a ministry. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary through you, Deputy Speaker: can he assure the House that the Minister for Human Services is aware of the responsibilities that the Prime Minister has given to her in her capacity as the Minister for Human Services? If so, how is she aware of them if she does not have her charter letter? Another point that the parliamentary secretary may answer is: have you received from your Cabinet minister you charter letter?
The process used to be in a normal working, functioning government was that a junior minister, as the Minister for Human Services is, or an outer ministry minister, would receive a letter from the Prime Minister. In this case, that has not occurred for whatever reasons. We suspect the chaos and dysfunction of the Gillard government is the reason in this case.
In the formally normal sort of the government, where the adults are in charge, the cabinet minister would send the parliamentary secretary a charter letter too. I am not sure if that was the case with the parliamentary secretary for Pacific Islands or not, but in a normal functioning government that was the case. In a functioning government after September 14, we suspect that will be the case again.
I say to the parliamentary secretary with the five minutes he has got left to answer this question: Parliamentary Secretary, is the Minister for Human Services likely to receive some correspondence from the Prime Minister at any stage in this term of government just to outline what she is responsible for with $157 billion worth of payments to make; and indeed have you received a letter from your cabinet minister advising you what your responsibilities are too?
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (18:11): I am happy to answer the question in relation to: does the minister know what her ministerial responsibilities are? I would think that the member for Mayo—I wonder what his job was at one stage. I think he worked for a number of cabinet ministers. I think he actually worked for the Prime Minister at some stage—that is right. He was actually aware of his responsibilities, and wasn't he the architect and author of Work Choices? I have a feeling he might have been at one stage.
The minister is very well aware. I mentioned the shadow parliamentary secretary's previous roles, because I am sure at some stage he would have seen something like a brief of their portfolio responsibilities that would have been delivered to his office. I am sure when he was working—I think it was for Alexander Downer, the former foreign minister—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! the member for Mayo, you had a good go. Everyone has one go at a time.
Mr NEUMANN: He was working for a number of ministers in the Howard government, and I think he was in IR. He would have received a number of ministerial briefs. He would have received a number of incoming parliamentary secretary or ministerial briefs which would have set out clearly the responsibilities. If you think that the minister, an experienced senator who has been in the Senate for such a long time, does not understand her portfolio responsibilities, then you are kidding yourself, member for Mayo. Of course someone as experienced a politician as Senator McLucas, the Minister for Human Services, knows very well her responsibilities.
It is interesting the fixation and obsession with a letter; nothing about the $157 billion he referred to in relation to the money that goes into the pay packets into the accounts of Australians—no questions about that; questions only about one piece of paper. He asked me the question: does Senator McLucas know about her responsibilities? Of course she does. She knows, and he should stop playing politics about this, because Senator McLucas is getting on with her role as Minister for Human Services.
I think it is important that we focus on what those roles are. I mentioned before in relation to—and he raised a question about her responsibilities; I am happy to talk about them. It is about administering a department that provides assistance to Australians each and every day.
The shadow parliamentary secretary mentioned the things they do: supporting over four million Centrelink and Medicare child support program customers is important in Australian government services online in a year. He wanted to know about her responsibilities. It is about doing that: administering a department that does that. It is about administering a department that manages some two million online transactions from Centrelink every week—that is what her responsibilities are: administrating a department that does that. It is about new services. He mentioned before in one of his questions the kind of technologies that are applying. The new service myGov became operational on 26 May 2013, enabling people to set up their own unique user account to subscribe to various services across the portfolio—that is what her role is: administering that department that does those sorts of things. And she knows very well her responsibilities in that regard.
There is also the work that is being done in relation to crisis management. If you had been around the country, member for Mayo, you would have seen where there are fires, floods and cyclones. You would have seen people in dark green T-shirts with Centrelink writing across it. And they would be administering things like disaster income recovery payments, payments that help people in their crisis, people whose homes have been flooded or burnt down. That is what the department does. And the minister is administering the type of department that provides that disaster relief.
And it has not been an easy year. You would think that the member for Mayo would realise that 2013 has been a tough year across Australia. You would think that he might ask questions in relation to what the department does in relation to disaster management. But, no, he is fixated with one particular letter. The member for Mayo should think clearly in relation to that. He should be focusing on helping families. That is what the department does and that is what the minister does; helps families through the department but there are no questions about that whatsoever.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (18:16): While this debate has been going on, I have opened the very first page of a google search for what is going on with family and Department of Human Services. You see all these faces on this webpage looking out, and the titles of the things that are looked after by Department of Human Services are things that are substantive. I think this is the point that the parliamentary secretary has been making. The question that is asked at the top of the website is: 'How can we help you?' That is a question that we ask every single day.
The obsession with process that we have seen in the type of question we have received from those on the opposite side reveals that they see what happens in this place so much as a play thing for point scoring. The substantive nature of what the department does is extremely significant; it matters to families; to separated parents; to job seekers; to older Australians; to migrants; refugees; visitors; students and trainees; to people with disabilities; to people who are concerned with issues about their health and what care and assistance they can get from family services; for carers; and for people in rural and remote Australia.
I know that I share with the parliamentary secretary that sense of being in a regional area. For us, the Department of Human Services is no small thing. It is a critical part of enabling our community. The Department of Human Services organised the Peninsula Link Day, which was an incredible innovation about how we can get efficient connections going on between programs and across our community; that is part of what has been going on in my regional area.
People are interested in family tax and the benefits that they can receive. People are interested in getting the support they need when they are in crisis—and crisis management is delivered by Department of Human Services. People are interested in looking after their children and the important delivery of child support.
So for the parliamentary secretary I have two questions. Firstly, what is the government doing to improve its capacity to support the current and changing needs of these Australians that I have been speaking about? And what are they doing to ensure that it continues to support and deliver government programs efficiently and effectively And, if there is time, I would also like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what the government is doing to better meet call demand and improve the telephony systems—and not only the idea of the electronic medium and the new apps he has commented on this afternoon—because people still do make phone calls.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (18:18): I note that the coalition did not ask one question about the Department of Human services. They fixated on one document; not a question at all that relates to the department that deals with probably more Australians each and every day than any other department. It goes to show how little they think of Australian families, individuals, pensioners and seniors.
I thank the member for her question. The department is spending about $16.2 million over two years to develop a business case for an upgrade or replacement of the income security integration system known as ISIS. She raised that issue in relation to improving capacity to support current and changing needs of Australians. That is important because the ISIS upgrade or replacement is crucial to supporting the social welfare system we have in this country. You have to have a decent system in place; otherwise those payments that I referred to earlier in my answers cannot be made. ISIS is a major IT system for Centrelink programs. The business case will inform a future decision about upgrading or replacing the system, and it is important that we do that. I will be brief in relation to this issue, because I know another member needs to speak quickly about another issue. We put enormous trust in this department, and Australians do as well. We need to enhance the capacity and capabilities of this department, because this is crucial. We need to have those systems in place so that Australians can have confidence that those payments will get into their accounts.
The member also asked questions in relation to older technologies. One of the things that are important is the need for a call centre. I mentioned before the number of phone calls that go to the department. It is enormous—tens and tens of millions, as I said before. So we are providing $30 million to help the department reduce the call waiting times, which of course has been a problem in the past. None of us like to wait on the phone, and we are trying to reduce the waiting times that people sometimes experience. There is funding of $10 million in the 2012-13 budget and $20 million in the 2013-14 budget, and that will allow the department to put in additional call centre staff.
I mentioned before the number of calls that take place: 44 million Centrelink-related calls in 2011-12—about 160,000 calls a day. So those public servants who answer those phone calls are important. It is sad to see that those opposite want to sack public servants—the kind of people that will answer those phone calls from Australians across the country. It is sad to see that those opposite cannot even bring themselves to ask one question, and it is interesting to note that the shadow minister did not ask a question of me at all tonight.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:23): I move:
That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Hawke, Mrs Hazel, AO
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 23 May 2013, of Hazel Hawke AO, place on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:23): It is a great pleasure to speak tonight on the great Hazel Hawke. When we heard of her passing just recently, my mother got on the phone to me and said to me: 'You have to get on the record about this brilliant Australian woman. She did so much for women in the suburbs of Melbourne. She did so much for women in country areas of Australia. She was a great role model for Australian women.' So it is at my mother's behest, but also my own desire, that I speak about Hazel Hawke tonight.
I was not fortunate enough to know Hazel Hawke, but, like my mother and so many Australian women, I admired her from a distance. I regard Hazel Hawke as a classic Australian woman. Over many years I have had several overseas friends who have come to Australia and met Australian women. They have described us as being quite unique—that we have a set of qualities that women in other nations throughout the world do not share.
My overseas friends have said to me that Australian women have particular characteristics. They are strong. They are independent. They are intelligent. They are self-sufficient and they are resilient. They are tough and they are plain-speaking.
I think we have had to be like this as a result of the trials and tribulations of our history since settlement. Also, Indigenous women did extraordinary things, living in great hardship throughout hundreds and hundreds of years. I do not know whether my overseas friends have it exactly right, because I do not think you can stereotype a whole nation of women with those particular characteristics—I believe we are quite diverse—but there is a thread of those characteristics running through most Australian women. And for me Hazel Hawke embodied all of those characteristics, and more. She was a strong woman. She was an independent woman. She was a self-sufficient woman. She was a tenacious woman.
I think the reason so many Australian woman identify with Hazel Hawke is that, like so many Australian women, she faced many hardships and sadnesses, and, as it is for so many Australian women, these hardships and sadnesses were as a result of the man in her life. Like so many Australian women she just go on with it. She licked her wounds, picked herself up and faced the world with a smile on her face and with great dignity, self-assurance and self-esteem. I think this is why so many Australian women could connect with her.
Hazel Hawke was a woman that other Australian women, including me, identified with. She was authentic in her public and personal personas. She dealt with the challenges in life with grace and great courage. In particular, she was a woman who brought to the attention of the nation the issue of Alzheimer's and the challenges of dealing with that disease—or, as she referred to it, 'the big A'. She truly changed the discussion around Alzheimer's disease and ageing in Australia, and this is a significant legacy of hers and her family's. Her family can be rightly proud of the work that she did in that and so many other areas.
Hazel Hawke made a significant contribution to our nation at a very personal and professional level. She will be greatly missed. Vale Hazel Hawke, a great Australian woman; a classic Australian woman; a great Australian.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Federation Chamber and thank the final speaker on the condolence motion.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:28): I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Bahrain: Human Rights
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr L Ferguson:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 14 February marked two years since the outbreak of the 2011 period of major unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain;
(b) the 2011 unrest in Bahrain has been characterised by a mass protest movement calling for constitutional, political and election reform;
(c) since the beginning of the protest movement in Bahrain, there have been reports of ongoing human rights violations against opposition figures, demonstrators and medical practitioners at the hands of the authorities, including fatalities and arbitrary political arrests; and
(d) there have been reports of acts of violence against the State, resulting in injury and, in some cases, fatalities;
(2) welcomes the resumption of Bahrain's National Dialogue on 10 February 2013 as a positive step towards political and related reform and reconciliation, and urges all parties to commit fully to the process and to reject violence; and
(3) calls on the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to:
(a) follow through on its commitment to full implementation of the recommendations of the November 2011 report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations during the 2011 unrest;
(b) release political prisoners who were arrested arbitrarily, investigate new reports of human rights abuses and bring the perpetrators to justice;
(c) respect the human rights of its people including the right to freely protest and the right of medical staff to give unhindered treatment to those injured while protesting; and
(d) commit to genuine reform that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the people of Bahrain.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (18:29): The main ingredient of this resolution seeks that the Bahraini regime follows the full implementation of recommendations in its own November 2011 report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations. One cannot be very confident that this will occur. In April of this year, amongst other events since the outbreak in 2011, there was the cancellation of a UN visit, after which Amnesty International concluded that the Bahrain regime was not serious about human rights. That followed the second cancellation of a planned visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Mr Juan Mendez, the other having been in February 2012. Mr Mendez himself went on to say:
'This is the second time my visit has been postponed at very short notice. The authorities seem to view my visit as an obstacle rather than a positive factor to the reform process …'
Now, we know that events in Bahrain in 2011, including an upsurge in resident action, was followed by Saudi Arabian intervention in the internal affairs of Bahrain in protection of the current regime. There has been wide coverage by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the US State Department in regard to events there.
A disturbing development was the contract signed between Prince Charles, with one of his operations, and the Bahrain regime for the architectural oversight of a 4,000-home development in the southern part of Bahrain, where there are discriminatory housing policies against Shia residents of the country. They remain on waiting lists while priority is given to migrant workers who join the police and security forces, from countries including India, Pakistan and Syria. What we have in a sense is an attempt by the regime to change the population balance in the country and to utilise outside bodies to enforce their measures. Amongst their other activities over the last little period were dawn raids and incarcerations of people in demonstrations, legitimate though they are. With regard to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in April 2013, it was said:
'This latest crackdown and the way it’s being carried out raises new questions about the Bahraini authorities' commitment to reform,' said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. These raids and detentions suggest that officials are more concerned with getting activists out of circulation for the Formula 1 race than with addressing the legitimate grievances that have led so many Bahrainis to take to the streets.'
On 6 April, security forces shot 16-year-old Hussain Khadem in the head with a teargas canister during a protest in the town of Sitra; the incident was filmed and posted on the internet. Khadem was reported to be in stable condition in a hospital awaiting surgery.
In an article from Amnesty International entitled 'Bahrain's dark side—empty promises while repression goes unabated', there is significant coverage of the government's failure to agree with the public perception that their forces had been especially repressive. A commission set up in November 2011 by the regime released a report about abuses carried out during the initial protests. The authorities conceded abuses were committed and said they were reforming. However, in the interim, we have seen their complete failure to act on their commitments; we have seen them fail to engage with outside human rights bodies and NGOs around the world; and we have seen the cancellation of the visit by the UN special rapporteur. We have seen the US State Department report on the Bahraini government repeatedly refusing entry to representatives of international human rights organisations, stating:
The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption; however, the government did not always implement the law effectively, and some officials reportedly engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.
The US State Department report further concluded:
The government owned and operated all radio and television stations …
The report also talks of the arrest of a 13-year-old boy, Yassin Shebar, on 29 April 2012:
… according to local and international media, he was beaten by security officials when arrested. On May 3, he was charged with illegal gathering (participating in an illegal protest or demonstration), rioting, and tearing a policeman's shirt.
The State Department also noted:
… in many such situations, the law prevents citizens from filing civil suits against security agencies.
It is a regime that, by any international standard, is suppressing the majority of its people, denying democratic rights and suppressing political opposition.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (18:34): I second the motion and rise in support of it. If you look at the full motion you will see that, yes, it is very critical of the government of Bahrain but it also attempts to give an outline, guidance and some way forward that might be adopted by the government of the Kingdom of Bahrain so that we do not have to have recurring debates like this in the Australian parliament that reflect the concerns of not only the wider Australian community but also, in particular, those who have made their home in Australia from Bahrain. I supported a previous motion in May last year. So we might end up having to do this every year, unless the government of Bahrain actually takes concrete action.
Some commentators might say—and they would have every right to do so—that the human rights situation over the last 12 months has deteriorated. According to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, a culture of impunity reigns, with human rights violations and arrests occurring on a weekly basis. We welcomed the 2011 Independent Commission of Inquiry, appointed by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Its recommendations have yet to be fully implemented. You often see that it is the case that the easy part is to have the inquiry and to have independent suggestions about the way forward, but the difficult part is to then be genuine in your response to what you are told., and this has to be in a true sense of reconciliation and reflection on the deed that have been done.
This commission of inquiry found that security forces had used excessive force against peaceful protestors during demonstrations and had arbitrarily arrested, detained, tortured, ill treated and denied them fair trials. Unfortunately, according to Human Rights Watch, protest leaders remain behind bars and no high-ranking officials have been held responsible for the abuses. Indeed, Human Rights Watch goes on to say:
Security forces used excessive force in 2012 to disperse anti-government protests. Authorities jailed human rights defenders and people who participated in peaceful demonstrations or criticized officials. The government dissolved an Islamic opposition party.
More recent examples include that, on 15 May, last month, Bahrain state media reported that six people were jailed for a year for insulting the king in a messages on Twitter.
On 25 April 2013, the United Nations expert Juan Méndez said that the Bahrain government had effectively cancelled his scheduled visit to Bahrain. So they would not allow the UN expert to visit. He was going to investigate reports that authorities abused and tortured protestors in detention. On 15 March this year, dozens of people were injured when protestors clashed riot police on the second anniversary of the Saudi-led military intervention in Bahrain.
On a positive note, I acknowledge that on 29 March 2013 a court in Bahrain cleared 21 medics of charges linked to antigovernment protests in 2011. If I remember rightly, that was the basis of our motion in May 2012. Arrests of dozens of medical workers were part of a crackdown by the Bahrain's Sunni rulers after the Arrests of dozens of medical workers were part of the crackdown by Bahrain’s Sunni rulers after an uprising began in 2011 by majority Shiites seeking a greater political voice. I acknowledge that on 13 March this year two police officers were sentenced to 10 years in prison for the fatal beating of an antigovernment protestor at the beginning of Bahrain's political crisis in 2011. The sentences are amongst the harshest against security forces for abuses in Bahrain.
I join with the member for Werriwa in welcoming the resumption of Bahrain's national dialogue, which has been held twice a week since 10 February 2013. However, I note that on 22 May the majority Shiite groups announced that they would boycott these meetings for two weeks due to a crackdown by authorities that has seen hundreds of citizens arrested and the home of a prominent Shiite cleric raided. I hope that the Bahrain government take the discussion here in the spirit that it is meant. Something must be done to show that Bahrain is going forward, not further backwards.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports—Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts) (18:39): I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the situation in Bahrain, as we did this morning about the situation of Assyrian Christians, particularly in northern Iraq. When the Arab Spring swept across the Middle East in 2011, there were high hopes that this would lead to a new age of freedom and democracy in the Arab world. In Tunisia last year, I met Rashid Ghannushi, the head of the moderate Islamist party Ennahda. His comments disassociating himself and his party from Hamas were most encouraging, but unfortunately there has been much unwelcome backsliding of democracy in Tunisia. I trust the words of Mr Ghannushi, and I call upon him to address the situation there.
In Bahrain, however, the Arab Spring produced a deadlock between the king and his government, dominated by the Sunni Muslim minority, and the Shiah majority of the population. Since 2011, there have been a series of mass demonstrations in Bahrain against the government, demanding free elections and an end to Sunni domination. The government has met these demonstrations with violent repression and highly political trials. Over 100 people have been killed and many have suffered torture while in detention. The government went so far as to prosecute and imprison doctors and nurses who gave medical aid to demonstrators who had been injured by police gunfire or affected by tear gas. Over 50 medical professionals were convicted of sedition, and about a dozen are still in prison. This is a disgraceful proceeding. Doctors who are undertaking the requirements of the Hippocratic oath should not be treated like this and have rightly brought Bahrain international condemnation. All of this is deplorable, and I join with the members for Werriwa and Scullin in demanding that the government of Bahrain cease violent repression of peaceful demonstrations and release all who have been arrested for taking part in such demonstrations, particularly the doctors and nurses, who are doing no more than their medical duty.
At the same time, however, we need to be cautious in our approach to this situation. From 1602 to 1783, Bahrain was under the control of the Persian Empire. The Islamist regime in Tehran has not forgotten this and regards Bahrain as part of its sphere of influence. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the ayatollahs, particularly Ayatollah Khamenei, have continued to seek to extend Iran's power to the Gulf region and have consistently interfered in the internal affairs of Bahrain and other Gulf States.
It is clearly not in the interests of peace in the Middle East that the Iranian regime gain control of the Gulf States. The King of Bahrain postulates himself as a friend of the West, and Bahrain provides basing facilities for the US Fifth Fleet. I make no apology for the fact that it would be against peace in the Middle East, against democratic interests and against Australia's interests for the government of Bahrain to be overthrown and replaced by an Islamist regime controlled by Iran.
But there are other ways out of this dilemma. If the government of Bahrain wishes to stay in power and retain the support of the democratic world and of other people in the Middle East, it needs to win the confidence of its own subjects. As the member for Scullin suggested, the people of Bahrain should be allowed to enter into a dialogue with their government. The king should release all political prisoners and allow free elections within a constitutional framework that guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Bahrainis. Then Bahrain would be a worthy recipient of the support of the democratic world against Iranian expansionism, amongst other things.
I commend the member for Werriwa and the member for Scullin for their participation in this debate—and indeed the member for Werriwa's initiation of it—and join them in calling for a national peaceful dialogue in Bahrain, which has recently commenced and recently been suspended. I call on the government of Bahrain to recommence those peaceful negotiations as soon as possible in the interests of all of its subjects and peace in that part of the world.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): Before adjourning the debate, I certainly acknowledge the gallery following this debate and obviously following the debate on human rights in Bahrain with some interest. With no further speakers on this topic, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next meeting.
Sugar Industry
Debate resumed on motion by Mr Christensen:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Australian sugar industry is one of the world's most efficient and innovative producers and exporters of sugar and the leader in the adoption of sustainable farming practices;
(b) Australia is the third largest exporter of sugar in the world;
(c) there are some 6,000 cane growers in Australia with more than 4,000 farms growing sugar that operate along Australia's eastern seaboard; and
(d) the sugar industry directly and indirectly supports 40,000 jobs in Australia, underpinning the economic stability of many coastal communities, and is the social fabric that has woven itself through the development of coastal townships up and down the coast; and
(2) expresses concern about claims that sugar is 'toxic'; and
(3) rejects calls for a tax based on the content of sugar in a particular food product.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:44): Sugar is one of the backbone agricultural industries of Queensland and the nation. The Australian sugar industry is one of the world's most efficient producers and exporters of sugar and is the leader in the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Indeed, as a nation we are the third-largest exporter of sugar in the world. We have some 6,000 sugarcane growers in Australia, some 4,000 mainly-family farms growing sugar along Australia's eastern seaboard, and there are more on the west coast, near the Ord. The sugar industry directly and indirectly employs and supports 40,000 jobs throughout Australia and underpins the economic stability of many coastal communities, particularly in Queensland. In that state, sugar is the social fabric that has woven itself through the development of towns up and down that state's coastline.
The sugar industry has seen its fair share of challenges. Canegrowers have battled on amid floods and bad weather, the deregulation of their industry, a corrupt world market, the recent forward-pricing debacle and also cane disease, such as smut, orange rust and now yellow leaf. These have all been the enemies from within for the sugar industry. But in recent times the sugar industry has also faced attacks from enemies without. Those enemies take the form of the nanny-state brigade, who would seek to regulate and control the consumption of sugar—as if we, the consumers, were all children who needed to be told what to do. The end result has been a contraction of the sugar industry, putting those 40,000 direct and indirect jobs associated with the industry at risk, putting the livelihoods of those 6,000 canegrowers—and in Queensland the near-4,000 farming families—at risk, right around this nation.
When I was a child there was a television commercial that was done, I believe, by the canegrowers organisation. It told us that sugar was a natural part of life. Today, we are told by this chorus of dietetic dictators that sugar is a poison, that sugar is toxic and that sugar is addictive—akin to drugs like heroin. The self-styled experts who use these words preach selective and mostly anecdotal information about sugar and health, which basically seeks to undermine consumer confidence in the safety of sugar. They demonise sugar, not based on sound evidence but on opinion and conjecture.
The nanny-state brigade claim that sugar is one of the key nutrients that are instrumental in the development of obesity. The reality is, there have been a number of major expert committees around the world that have looked into these exact claims, and all of them have concluded that there is no evidence of harm that can be attributed to current sugar consumption levels. Indeed, in this country, the National Health and Medical Research Council did a recent scientific review of the Australian Dietary Guidelines. They found in that review no conclusive link between sugar intake and obesity. In fact, they gave the papers that tried to peddle the story about a link between sugar and obesity a grade of D, which is akin to the D that you get on a report card at school—in other words, a fail. They noted that the evidence base for the claims—that there was a link between sugar and obesity—was poor, that the studies were inconsistent and that it was difficult to separate changes in total energy consumption from changes in sugar consumption.
I just wish the NHMRC had listened to their own advice, because they also went the way of the nanny-state do-gooders, by changing the Australian Dietary Guidelines from recommending that people should 'consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars' to recommending that people 'limit intake of food and drinks containing added sugar, and particularly limit sugar-sweetened drinks'. That change could now be used to influence Food Standards Australia New Zealand to set standards for food production in this country.
The World Health Organisation no less has found that the fundamental cause of obesity and being overweight is an energy imbalance between the calories consumed and the calories expended, so it is more complex than just removing sugar from the equation. There are calories outside of sugar—and there is the question of exercise. I am no poster boy for public health but I have to say that I cannot and do not blame sugar for my physique. It did not come about by putting too much sugar in my cups of tea. It did not come about because I selected only products with added sugar in them. It came about because of poor decisions to do with dieting, consuming foods high in fats and calories, and a lack of exercise, so I blame myself, not sugar, for my weight gain.
The facts speak volumes when it comes to sugar and obesity. The Green Pool Commodity Specialist compiled a report last year entitled Sugar consumption in Australia: a statistical update. The report found that sugar consumption in Australia had actually fallen by 9.3 per cent over the past eight years from 46.26 kilograms per person per year in 2004 to 41.97 kilograms in 2011.
The report also found that over the past 60 years consumption of sugar in Australia had fallen by 15 kilograms per person per year—that is a 26.4 per cent drop from the peak of 57 kilograms per person per year in 1951. No-one can say in those same time frames that obesity has declined in this country. This was found in a paper entitled
The Australian paradox: a substantial decline in sugars intake over the same timeframe that overweight and obesity have increased. The name of the report says exactly what the report found. One of the authors of that report was Professor Jennie Brand-Miller who holds a personal chair in human nutrition in the Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders at the School of Molecular Bioscience at the University of Sydney. The other author was Dr Alan Barclay, the Chief Scientific Officer, at the Glycemic Index Foundation and a spokesman for the Dieticians Association of Australia.
The Dieticians Association of Australia have also come out saying that this attempt to demonise sugar and link sugar directly to obesity is not helpful. The same view is shared by the Australian Diabetes Foundation. Dr Alan Barclay, who I have just talked about, is quoted as saying:
‘Sugar’ is not the issue—it is far more complicated than that.
He goes on to say:
… casting sugar as the ultimate villain and calling for regulation is misleading, unfounded and unnecessary.
Despite the facts that are on the table, this demonisation of sugar continues to be peddled in the press, almost unchallenged, and now it is leading the nanny-state brigade to call for attacks based on the content of sugar in food—in other words, a sugar tax. Other countries have introduced such a tax, including France, Finland, Norway, Hungary and Denmark, with little or no impact on obesity levels. I note Denmark actually repealed its sugar tax, because it has an impact on industry and jobs.
It is no surprise when you find a failed policy with industry collapse and job losses that you also find the Greens. Last week the Greens in Tasmania—their Tasmanian health spokesman—publicly called for the introduction of a sugar tax. He said:
The proposal for a federal sugar tax has merit as the obesity epidemic means that all options must be seriously considered …
This is not just some thought-bubble by a lone Greens MP; it is Greens policy that was announced by their former leader Bob Brown at the tax summit in 2011. Bob Brown said that a sugar tax should be introduced. As we have seen with so many other issues, including the carbon tax, that where the Greens push, Labor often follows. But it will not take much of a push because, back in 2009, my immediate predecessor as the member for Dawson, James Bidgood, called for a tax on food with a high sugar content. That is a disgrace for a person who was the representative of a sugar seat.
Now we have a chance to unit in this parliament: Labor, Liberal, National, Katter Australia Party and maybe even the Greens—I do dream, I know. Now is the chance to unit behind this motion and rule out a sugar tax from ever happening in Australia. The industry needs to be supported. It needs to be strengthened. It needs to be assisted through the removal of red and green tape and the opening up of new markets. What it does not need or ever needs is the demonisation of its product, sugar, and a great big new tax on sugar. I ask the House to support the sugar industry, to support cane-farming families and to support this motion. Thank you very much.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (18:54): I rise to talk on this motion of Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson. It proposes that there be no tax based on the sugar content in food. The motion states that the sugar industry is one of the world's most efficient and innovative producers and exporters of sugar and a leader in the adoption of sustainable farming practices. That is quite true. I think it is pretty efficient and getting more so. I can remember when I was first elected to the parliament over 20 years ago that the Labor government in those days was endeavouring to focus on the efficiency of the industry, as well as the difficulties of run-off from cane farming onto the Great Barrier Reef. The Minister for Primary Industries in those days was very active in setting it up and putting a lot of money into the industry. It is also about becoming more productive, using less fertiliser but getting more from the production side. That is what it has to be all about. Australia is the third largest exporter of sugar in the world. That is a fact. We have some six thousand cane growers in Australia and more than 4,000 farms growing sugar along the eastern seaboard. They are another couple of facts. The sugar industry directly and indirectly supports 40,000 jobs in Australia, underpinning the economic stability and social fabric of many coastal communities.
The motion expresses concerns about claims that sugar is toxic. That is probably an extreme view that is put around. The motion rejects calls for a tax based on the sugar content of particular food products. Australia is the third biggest exporter of sugar. The industry has undergone a lot of changes. It tackled and got rid of tariffs. It survived all of that. It did a pretty good job coming through that one. We use granulated sugars every day in our food and drinks. We know icing sugar is great on raspberries and strawberries from the great Tasmanian state. The Australian Dietary Guidelines for the intake of foods and drinks containing added sugar, like soft drinks and confectionery, have recently been revised to strengthen the advice for the consumption of sugar from moderate to limited. It is like anything that is taken in excess. If you see a mother putting soft drinks into a baby's bottle you would start to get concerned.
Those are the things we have to face up to and we need to make sure that we talk in reality. I was reading that our bodies need the right balance of sugar to function normally, as they do with everything else. I will not comment on the intake of rum and sugar for the sake of the member for Hinkler, who has just arrived in the chamber. I would like to refer to the good old Tasmanian apple, which is said to be both a killer and a cure, meaning that the natural sugars in the apples are high but they are balanced by the fibre in the apple so that it becomes a very good thing to eat. The old saying is: 'An apple a day will keep that doctor away.' The honourable member was talking about reaching the stage where sugar was banned not only in soft drink production.
I saw on Friday last in the Hobart Mercury 'Bring in a sugar tax', following the release of the state public health report by Dr Taylor, who is the Director of Public Health in Tasmania. He said Australia needed to seriously consider a tax on unhealthy food. I suppose it is pretty easy to pass it over from the state to the Commonwealth but I think Dr Taylor was genuine. He was talking about statistics that showed people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds have more health problems linked in part to the culture of consuming cheap fast foods, which, according to the statistics, is true.
The state Minister for Health, Michelle O'Byrne, said that putting in place a tax is a pretty serious matter and would require significant scrutiny to ensure that it would achieve an outcome. I think that is where it comes to a dead end. I think it is pretty difficult to put a tax on sugar or a tax on fat or anything else and then say 'this is the outcome'. We need to deal with issues but we need to deal with them in a proper way through education, knowledge and good labelling so people understand what they are taking in.
I also think the sugar industry needs to deal with many issues. I saw just recently that this Labor government has certainly been doing a fair bit. The Prime Minister was in the seat of Dawson in April. The government promised another $200 million over the next five years for the next stage of the Reef Rescue program. The program already has stopped 92,000 tonnes of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment going on to the Great Barrier Reef.
Looking at new ways of doing things and what you use sugar for, I am reminded of the amount of ethanol that comes from sugar in places like Brazil, which seems to get on very well. I think about 25 per cent of what drives cars in Brazil comes from sugar cane. They have an enormous bio ethanol industry. It all comes from sugar cane. There is a lot of opportunity to do that. This present government has contributed over $9 million from the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program to McKay Sugar Limited. I am sure the member put out a press release praising the government for putting money into his electorate. That company is investing over $120 million to reduce carbon emissions across its operations by 70 per cent for every unit of production, which is a credit to it. I congratulate it on achieving that.
We have an industry which plays a very important role, especially in those areas where the member for Dawson, who moved this motion in the House, comes from. We do have to confront the issues the industry is dealing with in growing sugar cane—the run-off effect and the health of the Great Barrier Reef, which the industry is dealing with in a very constructive way—and also improving productivity at the same time.
We need to deal with in a proper and constructive manner the issues we confront of sugars in our food and in our diets. We need to do that basing it on science. We should not just be blaming sugar. That seems to be an easy cop out to me. It is about education, better labelling, knowledge of our foods. I think of all the good programs like the Stephanie Alexander program, which will convince kids in schools to understand nutrition and food. That is one of the ways forward.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (19:04): I support the excellent motion of the member for Dawson on the sugar industry. Since Louis Hope grew the first sugar cane at Ormiston near Brisbane in 1864 we have seen the sugar industry grow from Far North Queensland, north of Mossman, all the way to Coffs Harbour. It has condensed over recent years from Mossman down to the Northern Rivers, but it is a major crop and certainly a major crop in Queensland. There are a few statistics to confirm that. Australia is the third largest raw sugar supplier in the world. Sugar is the seventh largest agricultural export from Australia, and 80 per cent of the product from the crop is exported. Its value to Australia is up to $2 billion a year. We crush 30 to 35 million tonnes of cane for four to 4½ million tonnes of raw sugar, and that supports 4,000 farmers, 24 sugar mills and six bulk sugar shipping terminals. In addition to that we have distilleries, including for the famous Bundaberg Rum, referred to earlier, which the girls drink as well as the boys, and we also have various refineries at Bundaberg, Mackay and elsewhere.
The sugar industry is part of the fabric of all those cities and towns along the coast. It has been the basis of irrigation schemes that the Bjelke-Petersen government set up in many places during its term in office. There was a dam being built every 18 months. In my area we have the Paradise Dam and the Monduran Dam. Bundaberg has not the biggest irrigation scheme in Australia but the most intensive. It supports sugar cane and small crop farms. You can see what the value of that would be from the figures I have just provided. However, we find now, with this abundant amount of water, with these canals and pipes, this intricate system of irrigation, that the price of electricity has got to a point where, for example, spray irrigation is no longer sustainable. The farmers cannot afford to irrigate their crops. What a nonsense. Australia has built all these marvellous dams, and now we have lifted our power costs so high that people cannot afford to use the water.
Power has gone up 250 per cent in Queensland since 2000—12½ per cent a year. What is worse is that it is going to go up 17½ per cent a year for the next seven years. That is going to put irrigation out of the range of most farmers. They have come to members of parliament and asked that irrigation tariffs 62, 65 and 66 have the network component removed to bring the price of those three tariffs down to something more reasonable. Instead of 17½ per cent and 12½ per cent per year, power prices would go up by the increase in the consumer price index. It is crazy to think that we have allowed such a marvellous industry to be brought to its knees because of the price of power in this country. It is a blot on the previous state government that it has got to this.
The member for Lyons in his presentation made a very good point: sugar used properly and in moderation is good. It is important for the canning industry, the food industry, the confectionary industry and the liquor industry. All of them require sugar. We need to make sure that these products are consumed properly. CSR is making LoGiCane, which is a product with a low glycaemic index, and it releases its energy slowly so it lessens hunger cravings and so on. The Isis Central mill has a product called Queensland high pol sugar, which is a semi-raw sugar that is very popular and very healthy. So let us have an end to this denigration of sugar as a food product and let us support the farmers who are having a tough time. (Time expired)
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (19:09): I am going to talk about the importance of the sugar industry to the Northern Rivers and its importance in my seat of Page. The sugar industry has been a part of life in northern New South Wales for more than 100 years. The New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative is a major employer on the North Coast and employs more than 400 people across major sites and accounts for $230 million of regional economic output. Total and indirect employment in the region is estimated at 2,200. This includes 450 mill and refinery employees and 550 cane farmers.
The New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative was formed when canegrowers purchased the three New South Wales sugar mills in 1978. These three mills are located at Condong on the Tweed River, in the seat of my colleague the honourable member for Richmond, and in my seat of Page at Broadwater on the Richmond River and Harwood on the Clarence River. In addition, the cooperative now operates a sugar refinery located alongside the Harwood mill. The New South Wales sugar industry occupies approximately 34,000 hectares of the Northern Rivers region and extends from near the Queensland border in the north to Grafton in the south. Some of this is on the cooperative's website and, from there, you start to get the picture that the sugar industry is an important industry in the Northern Rivers region on the North Coast.
I have listened to the contributions and have read the motion of the member for Dawson. I completely understand the member for Dawson's motivation of wanting to protect the sugar industry. I have also heard the contributions about food, nutrition and science. All things in moderation—that is always the key, but so many people are so aware now. They read so much and there is so much information on the internet that it can be hard to see the wood for the trees and to work out what is the good science about nutrition and all those things. It is incumbent on us to be involved in that debate.
I will say a couple of other things about defending the sugar industry in the Northern Rivers. One is about the Clean Technology Investment Program, which helps local manufacturers improve energy efficiency, reduce power bills—the member for Hinkler was talking about power bills, but it is not just the cost of power which has impacted on the industry; there have been a lot of other things—improve competitiveness and cut carbon pollution. The New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative at Harwood applied for and were awarded a grant under the program. The grant, for over a million dollars, was put towards a $3 million project—the cooperative is investing more than $2 million. The project will improve the efficiency of the sugar mill boiler and will cut carbon emissions by 53 per cent. But the great thing is that it will result in savings of $660,000 per year in energy costs. That big saving is being achieved while the project delivers good environmental outcomes at the same time.
The project involves installing an economiser at the Harwood sugar mill boiler. It will transfer energy from the exhaust gases to the boiler feedwater, heating the feedwater from 105 degrees Celsius to approximately 160 degrees Celsius. That improves the boiler's thermal efficiency and reduces energy consumption. These sorts of things are happening all over the Northern Rivers and are helping us move to a clean energy future there. We have one of the highest take-ups of renewables in our area—and it is really pleasing to see the New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative Ltd and the Harwood sugar mill coming on board with that.
I would like to make one other comment, very quickly: that the Regional Development Australia - Northern Rivers partnered with NSW Sugar and the Australian government to fill farm labour shortages with the introduction of a labour pool. It talks to the sugar industry because it helps sugar, macadamia and tea-tree farmers fill short-term and seasonal worker shortages in the Northern Rivers region.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (19:15): I rise to support my Queensland colleague on this very important motion that certainly from our point of view absolutely repudiates any possibility of a sugar tax in this nation. This side of politics is very firmly committed to making sure that we do not head down a path where we continue to raise taxes on hardworking Australian families, particularly in an area like diet. I have no problem with a government that make dietary recommendations or publishes dietary guidelines—I might even brook the notion of a CSIRO cookbook! But we certainly should not be in the game of having the government taxing particular items of food according to what the government feels is or is not something that is suitable to be consumed. There are plenty of ways to evaluate both what is a healthy food, by a nutrient analysis, and a safe food, under the food standards currently in place between Australia and New Zealand. It is quite another step, as has been proposed by the head of public health in Tasmania, to propose a sugar tax—either for that state or nationwide—as he did two days ago. That should not be supported and will not be supported by this side of the chamber.
I would like to devote my remaining time to what obviously underpins the great sugar industry of this nation, which indirectly or directly employs 40,000 Australians, which has 6,000 growers and which is the No. 1 exporter of sugar in the world. I also want to point out that, under the surface, there is quite an active debate between academics, groups that are supported by the food industry, and those that are supporting a range of different interests—even, lest I say, the author of Sweet Poison, David Gillespie—to try and shed some light on one constituent of the sugar molecule called fructose. We know that the body has hypothalamic regulation of protein intake and of fat intake, and that there are a few people that do not have good regulation of that intake. But we also know that sugar, broken down, is fundamentally fructose, glucose or galactose. Increasingly, light is shining on increased fructose consumption—which historically over the last few decades has increased—despite the findings of the 'Australian paradox' paper presented by Sim and Barclay, findings which have since been significantly attacked but are yet to be repudiated by the university that supported that research.
In essence, we are talking about what we are going to do for Australians whose consumption of high-energy food, particularly fast food, is inordinately large—consumption that in my part of the world, in regional Australia, leads to nearly three out of four adults being obese or overweight. Something has to be done. In this generation it will be the governments—both state and territory governments, and this federal government—that must find a solution. The solution is not blanket sugar taxes—I want to say that right now. The solution is more open dialogue. The debate around nutrition and dietary consumption should never become the tobacco debate, where we all hold firm and say that until the evidence is absolutely irrefutable we must do nothing. It is time that we negotiate, that we engage and that we speak to everyone—from the supermarkets to the retailers, from the food manufacturers to the growers—about identifying what is a healthy, balanced diet, and about encouraging Australians to stick to that.
The other major player in this space that has already spoken on this topic is the Dietitians Association of Australia. I am disappointed that the dietitians did not come to a federal, bipartisan forum held in this place in October of last year. The forum was attended by FSANZ and by the NHMRC, but amongst the 5,100 members of the DAA, they could not find one person to come and present at that forum and that discussion on sugar—a forum that had senior academics and other lay writers present. It is a debate that has to be had, not one that should be suppressed. When it comes to working out whether we need stronger guidelines, as we saw published earlier this year after significant delays, that move from moderating to restricting is a significant recommendation which does not need to affect the sugar price at all. It does not need to affect our overall consumption; it is just a reminder to those that have significant overconsumption of sugar—and that can be potentially 100 kilograms or more per year—that that the recommendations suggest half of that, at best. The average Australian consumes 50 kilograms of sugar plus another 10 per year consumed in juices. The debate is not about the national consumption. The debate is about excessive and wanton consumption in small numbers of Australians. That is a health issue that every one of us needs to commit to. Nut-net is another group that has worked very hard to combat some of the contributions by Gillespie and, by giving both of them an equal say, I am simply saying that we need to stick to the big picture. We need to admit that diabetes may not be a disease of sugar but it is certainly a disease of over-consumption of food and a disease of overweight. It is patently obvious that sugar is part of that formula and must remain in that national debate.
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (19:20): I rise to speak on and to support this motion. I was going to start my contribution by saying how pleased I was to see the news today that Paul Schembri has been elected unopposed to be the new chair of Canegrowers Queensland. He would be very well known to the member for Dawson and plenty of other people in the House. He has been the vice chairman of Canegrowers Queensland for many years and the chair of the organisation in Mackay. He has a wealth of experience as a grower and a very effective advocate for the industry in all its dimensions. I wish Paul all the best in his new role and he will welcome the opportunity to steer the organisation at a time when the industry faces the usual challenges of an export oriented product and plenty of opportunities for the future.
It has been great to sit in on the debate so far. The motion tells us why it is very important for the parliament to spend time considering the status and outlook for the sugar industry. It is an important industry for my electorate and of course an absolutely vital one for the member for Dawson. I believe all members should know that the sugar industry is a significant part of the Queensland economy and, indeed, the Australian economy because it ranks as the seventh largest of all Australia's agricultural exports with a value of around $2 billion per year. I can understand why the member for Dawson wants to use this motion to promote the industry and to defend it from perceived threats, but we should not let the debate paint a picture of an industry in some kind of crisis or without a strong future. That would be misleading. I would acknowledge, as I am sure others in this debate have done, that the industry has come off some highs in recent years. There was a five per cent drop in earnings from sugar in the year just gone. ABARES, in its most recent commodities outlook for the March quarter, shows us, however, that the international price in 2013, while lower than they were getting off the highs in 2011-12, is still higher than the average over the last 10 years. Looking ahead, ABARES is projecting prices to hold up in the years out to 2017-18 and, very importantly for this debate, its data is showing very strong growth in sugar consumption in the international sphere. We can expect continued growth of around three per cent in the next few years in line with the growing world population and rising incomes. Those factors, of course, led the Labor Party to develop the National Food Plan.
I would like to take a quick look at the claims of whether sugar is toxic and then at what action the government is called on to take. The whole question of sugar's effect on health and its contribution to obesity is very hotly debated, as it has been here tonight with this motion. There are calls for the government to act in various ways. The government is acting on the question of food, nutrition and its contribution to good health and wellbeing, but it is doing that through a very science based and evidence based approach through the review of food labelling and the Australian Dietary Guidelines, an update of which was released in February. The Australian Dietary Guidelines are all about dealing with the evidence and with scientific research to make these decisions. They have taken the step, looking at all the scientific research, to recommend that people limit the intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars. But, beyond that, the government is looking at things like the Food and Health Dialogue—which the member for Bowman was sort of advocating without, I think, really knowing the detail of it. The Food and Health Dialogue involves government, science and the medical fraternity and industry looking at how products can be reformulated to reduce things like salt and sugar to get those health outcomes without having the kind of king-hit on an industry that the member for Dawson is concerned about.
Debate adjourned.
Reform Agenda for Older Australians
Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Hall:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the Government has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is delivering enormous commitment and investment in aged care and promoting positive aged care issues by:
(a) increasing the aged pension;
(b) reforming the aged care system; and
(c) helping older Australians stay at work longer; and
(2) calls on all Members to support the reforms and guarantee support for older Australians.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (19:25): I rise to speak on the motion of put forward by the member for Shortland for aged-care reform for older Australians. The motion asks of the House that it acknowledges that the Gillard government:
… has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is delivering enormous commitment and investment in aged care and promoting positive aged-care issues by:
(a) increasing the aged pension;
(b) reforming the aged care system; and
(c) helping older Australians stay at work longer;
That is certainly something that I have encountered much feedback on in my electorate of Moreton. I have had a lot of seniors morning teas over the years. I have every four or six months or so and have had positive feedback and difficult questions about the Gillard government's aged-care agenda. In my electorate of Moreton there are over 17,000 constituents over the age of 65 and, of those 17,000, almost 11,500 were on the aged pension as of December 2012.
The Gillard government has implemented historic changes to aged-care reform with the Living Longer, Living Better reforms. The reform involves a comprehensive 10-year plan to reshape aged care, providing $3.7 billion over five years to build a better, fairer and more nationally consistent aged-care system.
Moreton is home to a number of wonderful aged care facilities with great staff and superb community atmosphere. I recently took the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Mark Butler, to Cazna Gardens Retirement Community in Sunnybank Hills to show him the new dementia wing. The environment was warm and friendly but I know that the facility staff do a difficult job. Minister Butler was very impressed by the quality of life the staff at Cazna Gardens provide to the people in that facility. Sadly, the number of applicants is getting longer and longer.
Aged care has recently implemented a number of initiatives in aged-care reform and this motion put forward by the member for Shortland is about taking the extra step towards reform for our older generations. As I mentioned earlier, I regularly hold seniors morning teas in my electorate, and I have had presentations from representatives of Centrelink, Medicare, the local police, aged-care service providers and other local community organisations. Every time I meet with the local groups from my electorate I learn from the experience, but particularly from these seniors morning teas. That collected wisdom of our elders is something that has to be experienced to be believed. These discussions with hundreds of older Australian's from my electorate has taught me that we obviously need to do more for older Australians, particularly those in aged care.
The Labor government was responsible for delivering the biggest ever increase to the pension. We have reformed the indexation system so that the pension keeps better pace with the cost of living. We have also introduced a new seniors work bonus, to make sure pensioners can keep more of their pension while working, if that is what they so choose. We have also delivered another pension increase as part of the household assistance package. My understanding is that that is something that would be cut away by those opposite.
The government is also continuing the full implementation of the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reforms. Under the reforms, older Australians, their families and their carers will get the right sort of care and support, either in their own home if they so choose and are able to do so or in the appropriate aged-care facility. The aged-care system under Labor will be better and fairer and will provide greater choice and control for older Australians. As I know from my mother's experience and my father's experience, having choice and control is most important. It delivers most dignity and is the fairest approach.
The recent budget builds on the government's work to support Australians in retirement, and I would like to particularly mention a few organisations in my electorate. One that has shown great initiative in the aged-care sector is the Evergreen Community located in Sunnybank.
Evergreen Community is a non-profit organisation dedicated to providing aged-care services for the Chinese Australian senior citizens and people with disabilities in the Brisbane area. Tyrone Kam and his team of 25 at Evergreen Community offer a range of learning, social and health services for their members.
Due to the language barrier and cultural differences, most of these elderly people would find it hard to communicate with the outside world if they were left at home. Their children may not be able to attend to their needs due to work commitments or other reasons, resulting in a group of elders who would be living a life of loneliness and helplessness.
The establishment of the Evergreen Community will help the Chinese seniors in Brisbane to settle into society and make Australia their second home. their motto is: with care dedication, we are able to make the lives of the elderly richer and more meaningful—and they certainly do so.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:31): I am pleased to rise and speak on this motion moved by the member for Shortland. I welcome this motion being brought on as it also provides an opportunity to touch on a package of legislation that recently passed through the House but fell well short of expectations, certainly for those in our aged-care sector.
As we have seen, this government's record on aged care has been patchy to say the least. For five years this government has ummed and ahhed in response to this most critical industry, an industry in crisis. It is known that up to 60 per cent of facilities currently in the aged-care sector are running at a loss. We have seen providers leaving the industry aghast and sick of waiting for the government to respond to inquiry after inquiry and report after report.
Providers in the aged-care sector offer a service absolutely critical to our nation's older citizens and this service is becoming more and more important with our ageing population. At the moment, unfortunately, we are seeing less investment in new facilities simply due to the uncertain environment that this government has provided.
However, despite this, there are some fine examples of wonderful facilities coming online and I have mentioned in this House previously the example of Barden Lodge, a facility in the electorate of Hughes which was opened earlier this year. It typifies the quality of service that on the whole is provided by the sector, dedicated to supporting and caring for older Australians.
But turning back to the contents of the motion before the House, it talks about a so-called positive agenda, an investment in aged care before highlighting three areas—namely, the aged pension, aged-care reform and support for older Australians to stay in the workforce. There is certainly nothing contentious in the motion but, when you cut through there flowery rhetoric, you see this as little more than typical of a government big on announcements and light on delivery.
Take increasing the age pension: we know that the current Prime Minister opposed this in cabinet with those famous words: 'Old people never vote for us.' Turn to Labor's so-called reforms—here we are speaking of the living longer, living better suite of legislation that we saw go through the House in the previous sitting week. The legislation came in response to the Productivity Commission's review, Caring for older Australians, that was handed down almost two years ago back in August 2011, which followed two other Productivity Commission reports in recent years.
But after sitting on this report for almost 12 months, what did this government come up with? Simply cherry-picking a couple of the 58 recommendations in the report and ripping $1.6 billion out of the aged-care funding instrument to pay for a $1.2 billion union recruitment strategy. he workforce supplement has been widely panned by industry stakeholders under the Senate estimates committee process, so it was no surprise that the Minister for Ageing was unable to find an aged-care centre to make this announcement.
While I could continue to describe the humorous scene of the minister announcing this policy outside a church, rather than an aged-care centre, just to the north of my electorate, I will instead take the remaining time to outline the positive plans the coalition has for older Australians in my own electorate and across the country.
The aged sector in this country is desperately in need of certainty, stability and support. That is why a coalition government, should we be elected in September, will introduce the first ever four-year aged-care provider agreement. This agreement will deliver better and more affordable aged care by reducing red tape and cutting time spent on reports and paperwork, allowing nurses to get back to providing care for clients, delivering value for money through revised subsidy arrangements and providing certainty for the aged-care workforce.
The coalition will also extend this certainty and stability to superannuation by making no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation, so that those planning for their retirement can do so with confidence, as well as supporting savings by getting the economy firing on all cylinders. We will support mature age workers with employment and support pensioners and self-funded retirees by tackling the cost-of-living pressures and providing pension increases and benefits without a carbon tax. And, importantly to my community, we will deliver fair indexation for DFRB and DFRDB pensions, where this government has spectacularly failed. We are going to see a terrible situation in the months to come, where many elderly Australians who have worked all their lives will be unable to afford to pay their electricity prices because of this government's carbon tax.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (19:36): It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight in support of this motion before the House. I do so because—and I know I have said it many times in this place—the electorate that I represent is one of the oldest electorates in terms of demographics in the country, with 20 per cent of the residents of Hindmarsh being over the age of 65. As I have said before and will say again, I like to call it the wisest electorate in the country, not so much the oldest electorate, because with age and with all those years of experience comes wisdom. So it gives me great pleasure to rise tonight and to speak in support of this motion.
This Labor government has demonstrated a very positive reform agenda for older Australians across our community and across our nation. Our reforms to the pension, for example, are the most significant changes since its introduction more than 100 years ago. The improvements to the indexation system mean that, when the cost of living goes up for pensioners, the pension goes up with it. Under Labor, the pension will keep going up. Since 2009, the maximum rate of the pension has increased by $207 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples combined. Annually, this means that Labor has delivered $5,380 more each year for single pensioners on the maximum rate of the age pension and more than $6,130 each year for pensioner couples on the maximum rate.
We also know that, as people get older and their lives or circumstances change, they may want to downsize their home to something that better suits their needs, but many have been very concerned that they will lose some of their pension, if not all of their pension, with the extra money left aside if they do downsize and sell their family home. For pensioners downsizing their home, it may mean that they have, as I said, excess sale proceeds which may affect that level of pension that they receive after it is counted under the pensions income assets test, which many will know as the pensions means test. For some, the potential loss of that pension may force them to reconsider, and many have reconsidered a move to a smaller home that would have been more suited to their needs.
But there was a trial announcement by the government in the budget which will ensure that pensioners who wish to downsize the family home to a less expensive home can do so now without their pension being affected by the sale proceeds of their home. This is a very, very good thing which will allow older Australians to downsize as their needs change. This is all about giving our senior citizens and older Australians more choices and better options as they make important decisions about their lives, and I am very proud, as those of us on this side of the House are, to support these very good reforms.
Yet another substantial program supporting older Australians is the very successful Broadband for Seniors program. Under this program, the government has established around 2,000 internet kiosks for seniors around the country and I have had the pleasure of going to the openings of a few of them in my electorate. These kiosks provide free access to broadband internet and more vital access to training that will enable seniors to learn new computer skills and feel confident online and be connected to the world—and, most importantly, to their grandchildren who sometimes might not live close by and the only way they have access to them is through emails and the internet. More than 250,000 seniors have already benefited from this seniors broadband program.
Thanks to the new Keeping Seniors Connected budget measure, each kiosk will be able to receive a new computer terminal with a touchscreen as well as the latest software, and a $2,000 grant to boost training and information sessions. These information and training sessions will be particularly focused on cybersecurity and personal online safety. All of these reforms, including indexation of pensions, are under threat from an Abbott-led opposition. It is the same opposition that supports cuts to superannuation and the same opposition that wants to rip the GST revenue out of the hands of South Australians, for example, while simultaneously increasing the rate and base of the GST. And we heard that Mr Abbott will finish the job of the Henry review, and we know that many of the recommendations, including using the family home as part of the assets test for the pension, were in that Henry review.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (19:41): I am very pleased to speak on this motion regarding the government's reform agenda for older Australians. Aged care is an issue that affects all of us. We may have parents or other older relatives and friends needing aged care, either now or prospectively, or we may ourselves be at a stage of life where we need such care, either in our own home or in an aged-care facility.
I want to speak for a moment about the many fine retirement villages and aged-care facilities in my electorate of Bradfield. Just in the last few months I have had the opportunity of visiting Fernbank Retirement Village in St Ives, Christophorous House retirement village in Hornsby, the BUPA retirement village in Roseville, KOPWA aged care in Roseville, which stands for the Ku-ring-gai Old People's Welfare Association but now is just KOPWA, the Presbyterian Aged Care Northern Sydney Community Care Service, the Adventist Retirement Village in Normanhurst, the Southern Cross Residential Care Retirement Village in North Turramurra and the Rohini retirement village in Turramurra.
I regularly find myself very impressed by the quality of the facilities I visit—the caring staff, the cleanliness, the high physical standards and the facilities—but achieving this outcome is not easy. I regularly hear from those who operate aged-care facilities in my electorate about the difficulties they are facing in maintaining the economic viability of those facilities.
This motion before the House this evening speaks in glowing terms about the current government's enormous investment in aged care, an investment that was purportedly manifested in the Living Longer Living Better package announced in April 2012. But it very soon became clear, after that package was announced, that its immediate effect was in fact to reduce funding to many aged-care facilities; indeed, there was a total reduction of $1.6 billion in the aged-care funding instrument. I received many complaints—as did many other coalition members—about the fact that the government sought to achieve savings of $500 million from this instrument in one year, starting from 1 July 2012. One local aged-care provider had this to say, in response to the statement in the minister's press release of April last year that the new package would 'set stricter standards, with greater oversight of aged care' in a letter he wrote to me:
The aged-care industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in Australia. The requirement to meet the four accreditation standards and 44 outcomes, with two annual audits and a major one every three years, and with numerous regulations and requirements of all kinds, begs the question: why even more scrutiny? What is prompting these kinds of statements?
The frustration which is evident in that letter speaks volumes for the mismatch between the approach that this government has taken and what is likely to be required to solve the difficulties that, we all agree, are facing the aged-care sector. There is a significant constraint on the availability of places in aged-care facilities where Australians of older years can go, to receive the care that they rightly expect and that we would all want them to have and that we would all want for ourselves when we come to that stage of life.
Let me quote from a letter I received from the major aged-care provider Bupa, which has a number of facilities around Australia including a facility at Roseville in my electorate, which I visited last year. Bupa had this to say:
In our view the Living Longer Living Better reform package ... largely ignored the Productivity Commission's recommendation for a personalised care entitlement system that would enable improved customer choice and flexibility. We believe our Older Australians and their families should be able to pick and choose where they receive their care. We therefore urge the Government to proceed with a single entitlement based funding system and to start this process of reform now; not 5 years hence as suggested.
The reality is despite the glowing assessment of this current government's approach to aged care, which is implicit in the words of the motion before the House this evening, the reality is that in this area as in so many others this Rudd-Gillard government has made sweeping promises in relation to reform of aged care. But in fact, the reality has fallen troublingly short of those bold promises. By contrast, the coalition has a clear plan for the aged-care sector, which has been well articulated by our spokesperson, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. We intend to establish a four-year aged-care provider agreement to deliver vital certainty in this sector.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:46): Tonight I want to speak about the importance of seniors, their contribution to our community and the need for policies which meet the needs of the seniors' community. I believe the House should acknowledge that the government has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is delivering enormous commitments and investments in aged care and promoting positive aged-care issues. For example, the increase in the age pension, which I will talk about; reforming the aged-care system; and helping older Australians stay at work longer.
Australia has one of the longest life expectancies in the world—something that we should be celebrating as a nation. With a growing population, over-65-year-olds will represent one in four Australians by 2047. There are great opportunities for our community and for our economy if we encourage healthy ageing, the lifelong development of skills and capitalise on the extensive experience of older Australians.
Labor has a strong record of delivering for older Australians. For example, we have delivered the biggest ever increase to the pension and reformed the indexation system so that the pension better keeps pace with the cost of living. This was a claim that was tested recently by PolitiFact Australia. They consulted with Prof. Peter Whiteford at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University and he had this to say:
There is no doubt in my mind that the real value of the pension is much higher now than at any time previously.
PolitiFact Australia went on to say that after calculating the real value of the aged pension over the years, the 2009 pension increase was the biggest rise in real terms after adjusting for inflation. Prof. Whiteford's calculation showed that, adjusting to 2012 dollar values, the rise in 2009 was to $18,522 from $16,010.41 or nearly $2,500 per year. This is an historic reform delivered by this Labor government.
We have also introduced a new seniors work bonus to make sure pensioners can keep more of the pension while remaining in the workforce. We delivered another pension increase as part of the Household Assistance Package to ensure that pensioners' budgets can keep pace with increasing utility costs.
Since 2009 the maximum rate of the pension has gone up by $2007 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples combined. The government is also continuing the full implementation of the Living Longer Living Better aged-care reforms. Under the reforms, older Australians, their families and carers will get the right care and support either in their own home or in an aged-care facility. The aged-care system under Labor will be better, fairer and provide greater choice and greater control for older Australians. The 2013-14 budget builds on the government's work to support Australians in retirement. Amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 are a part of a 10-year plan to build a better, fairer, sustainable and nationally consistent aged-care system to meet the challenges of the nation's ageing population. The government's aged-care reform plan will deliver more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians, their families and carers. We are replacing an aged-care system designed a quarter of a century ago and which is now ill-equipped to the needs of retiring baby boomers and their parents, who are living longer and healthier lives. The government is supporting senior Australians with a number of initiatives in the 2013-14 budget, including a $112.4 million pilot for a program to support age pensioners and other pensioners of age pension who want to downsize their home without immediately affecting their pension.
I think there are great opportunities for my electorate with what I would like to describe as the seniors economy. It is much more than aged-care facilities, it is about ensuring that we have the sorts of services for people who like to move to a region like the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands for their retirement to live and enjoy. Services such as leisure, sport, culture, accommodation, care and health services provide a booming service and a booming opportunity for regions like mine. The Illawarra is an attractive and affordable destination for retirees and our potential is poised to develop a vibrant seniors economy well into the future. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (19:51): I rise to speak on this motion because the care of senior Australians is of vital importance to our nation's future and equally to the aspect of reform being real and meaningful. Elements of a reform that does not encompass what is included in the Productivity Commission report are problematic. I have met some of the providers and people who access healthcare and all of them have raised issues with me. We know that every 71 minutes another older Australians is denied access to the care that they need, and care for aged varies according to geographic location, access to services that are viable, access to services that provide for the context of living in care or living within their homes. If the workforce is not supported, 279,000 Australians will be denied care by 2050. So reform has to be forward-thinking and project into the future as to the level of need that is required.
I notice that the member for Shortland's motion talks about the positive reform agenda for older Australians and that the government is delivering on this commitment. But sometimes commitment has to be tangible and real in all facets of what is needed by those who are reaching the age of retirement or whose health needs force them into aged-care facilities. In talking with people within the service delivery sector there is a view that we will be $90 million short between income and the real cost of care for those in residential facilities and that 83,000 new beds are needed to be built within the next nine years, at an estimated $17 billion. So there are some challenges in claiming that the reform has gone sufficiently far enough to address the needs of our elderly Australians and those who work in the area as well.
It was interesting looking at the leading aged services. What they indicated in one of their publications is that there are three million Australians aged 65 and over, there are close to 1,000,000 Australians receiving Home and Community Care, there are around 170,000 Australians living in residential aged-care facilities, there are 1.3 million family carers of older Australians and there are 300,000 people who are aged-care workers.
If that is not meeting our needs this year, and we have not done sufficient reform based on the Productivity Commission report, then the matter will be exacerbated over the forthcoming years, particularly when you consider that the tax base will go from six workers for every retiree, to 3.2 workers for every retiree by 2047, which will leave us with an incredible shortfall.
When reforming we have to think outside the square. We have to consider a range of options and considerations in the delivery of services. Sometimes we stay with models of reform processes that are comfortable instead of looking at how we can become much more creative and innovative. How do we empower the elderly and give them some options that are tangible and which meet their needs?
Within my own electorate if you are in the area of Kalamunda-Lesmurdie and you require aged care services you either have to go to Joondalup or to Gosnells, which are significantly far enough away to be problematic for those who use public transport. Reform has to be real and we have to consider seriously how we do that with a bipartisan approach as opposed to taking a political approach that meets short-term agendas that sound as though they are achieving the results that are sought—the information and approach taken by the current government.
I think it is important that any future reform around aged care services is real and includes the industry. Certainly the guidelines, as espoused in the recent debate on aged care services, need to be transparent so that the industry can respond. The issues in aged care services in Australia are real and challenging, and there is work to be done.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) (19:56): I rise to strongly support this motion. We on this side of the House have a proud record of achievement in supporting our seniors. Since being elected in 2007, the federal Labor government has added an extra 25,849 residential places, 13,052 community care or home care places, and 2,000 transition care places nationally. I have visited, right across my electorate of McEwen, many of the aged care homes to talk to the residents about our changes and, most importantly, to hear first-hand their thoughts.
The government have also provided more than $52.2 billion for aged care services, and we will provide nearly $13.6 billion for aged care in 2012-13, compared to the $7.8 billion of 2006-07. Over the next four years more than $59 billion will be invested in aged care services. Since 2007, the Labor government has increased its funding to the sector by over 60 per cent. Just last week, this House passed the Gillard government legislation for the $23.7 billion Living Longer Living Better aged care reforms. This will be of great benefit for the more than 19,000 seniors who I represent in the seat of McEwen.
Since Labor has delivered historic reforms to the aged care system and the pension, we have been investing in services and supporting older Australians to continue to work. We on this side of the House are giving seniors the choice, the support and the certainty that they deserve. Australians now live longer, have healthier lives and are more active in retirement. Changes to the Aged Care Act of 1997 were part of the 10-year plan to build a better, fairer, sustainable and nationally consistent aged care system to meet the challenges of the nation's ageing population. Our aged care reform plan will deliver more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians and their families and carers. As the member for Throsby pointed out, the current aged care system was designed a quarter of a century ago, and it is now ill-equipped to meet the needs of retiring baby boomers.
Key aspects of the reform include the consumer directed care packages rolled out nationwide, providing people with more control over the services they receive, and almost $1 billion in new funding for home care, which will see the number of home support packages almost double from 60,000 to 100,000. We also have the tailored care packages for people with dementia receiving home care; a new funding boost for dementia care; increased funding for residential aged care, with 30,000 new places over the next five years; and $480 million for aged care homes to significantly upgrade their facilities.
And, of course, there is the $1.2 billion to deliver higher wages, better conditions and more rewarding careers for the nation's 350,000 aged care workers. This has been something that has been a huge point at every aged-care facility that I have visited. Every one of the residents who are they all say just how great the staff are—just how dedicated and passionate they are to their industry and to their workplace. But one thing that has been holding aged-care workers that has been their wages and conditions. That is why it is important that we invest this money, to give higher wages and to make sure that people who want to be working in that industry are able to do so and to get a decent wage for the work that they do. In essence, we have created a single gateway to all aged care services, to make them easy to access and to navigate.
I would also like to note that the Gillard government has also delivered for pensioners, because we know that pensioners have limited room to move in their budgets. That is why we have delivered the single biggest boost to the pension in more than 100 years. That is why we changed the indexation system so that the pension goes up annually, to better reflect changes to pensioners' costs of living. Since our historic pension reforms in 2009, the maximum rate of the pension has increased by $207 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples combined. Following the latest increases, total pension payments for people on the maximum rate, including the base rate pension supplement, are $808.40 a fortnight for singles and $1,218.80 for couples combined.
And the pension will keep going up under Labor. Both my parents are pensioners and they have told me, as have many pensioners across McEwen when I meet them, just how much these positive changes have meant to their lives. It is something very important to ensure that we continue to look after older Australians and make sure that we give them the opportunity to enjoy their retirement to their best advantage, and enjoy everything that we have to offer.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (20:01): I rise to speak on an issue that is extremely important to the people of Kooyong, namely, the future of aged care. Be under no illusions: there is a crisis in aged care. Only 40 per cent of residential aged-care providers are operating in the black. Under its reforms the government has cut $1.6 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument, with Leading Age Services Australia, LASA, saying that there will be a revenue black hole of more than $750 million over the next 2½ years.
There is insufficient support for people to remain in their homes. For example, in 2011 there were 24,000 applicants for the 1,698 community care places advertised. Attracting high-quality nursing staff is difficult, with aged-care nurses receiving in some cases up to 30 per cent less than their colleagues working in acute care. And the sector is suffocating under increased red tape and regulation, with aged-care nurses reporting that up to one-third of their time is spent on paperwork. Add to this mix that through its new workforce supplement the government is seeking to unionise all those who work in the aged-care sector, and one could not imagine it getting any worse.
But it will, as Australia is facing a demographic time bomb—not unlike many other countries in the world, but we are simply ill-prepared. Today 13 per cent of our population is over the age of 65, a number which will reach 26 per cent by 2050. Today, 2,700 people are over the age of 100, rising to 78,000 by 2050. Today, the ratio of working Australians to every person in retirement is just over five to one, but by 2050 it will nearly be 2.7 to one.
These numbers will create huge funding problems in the aged-care sector, as the number of users continues to grow: some 3½ million people each year by 2050, with governments expected to meet the costs of funding concessional and assisted aged-care residents. Indeed, by the Department of Health and Ageing's own numbers, by 2050 five per cent of the Australian workforce—over 827,000 people—will be engaged in the provision of aged care. So, given this tsunami of demand that is coming our way, what is the Gillard government doing to prepare us for the future? The answer is 'very little'.
Back in August 2011 the Productivity Commission released an important report, Caring for older Australians. It is one of 20 reviews and three Productivity Commission reports undertaken by this government. But rather than respond quickly to the report's recommendations, which included shifting the ration system of licences and packages currently in place to an entitlement system where aged care would be part of the health system, the government took 250 days to announce its response—which in the end was contrary to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, as it introduced new regulations to pricing.
What this government clearly does not understand is that accommodation bonds as refundable deposits play a critical role in the aged-care funding model, building the capacity for investors to construct new facilities and open up more beds. The government's proposed legislation, which is being hastily rushed through this parliament—including by truncating the reporting dates for an important Senate inquiry—will see the creation of a new bureaucracy, the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner, which will make a discretionary determination regarding the pricing of bonds. This has created huge uncertainty and a disincentive to invest.
In addition, the aged-care workforce supplement I referred to previously will require aged-care operators with 50 or more beds to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements as a condition of receiving additional funding. Those operators with under 50 beds will have to abide by the conditions of the supplement nonetheless. Like the government's tactics in the childcare sector, this is a brazen attempt to increase the membership of the depleted and scandal-ridden HSU, as well as boosting the stocks of Minister Mark Butler's old union, United Voice. This reform is going ahead despite being roundly rejected by the peak provider bodies.
Enough is enough. This government has to be called to account for its failure to prepare for a better future for aged care. Its policies have been more than disappointing; they have been detrimental in the extreme. It is with that in mind that I oppose the member for Shortland's motion today.
Debate adjourned.
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (20:07): I rise tonight to reiterate my position on marriage equality, which I have spoken about before in this parliament. After much thought over many years, I am convinced the debate around marriage equality is fundamentally an argument about justice and that all people should be equal before the law. So, in good conscience, I have had no other choice than to support marriage equality.
Over the years I have honestly tried to weigh all the arguments in this debate. Many people try to convince me not to support marriage equality. In doing so, they have urged me to consider the children of same-sex unions. It caused me to reflect on my own family. I would have preferred that my father had not left my mother when I was 11. It was not my choice, it was not the choice of my sisters and it was certainly not the choice of my mother. It was the choice of my father. I bitterly resent and take deep offence at the suggestion that I was not raised in a family or that I am damaged or dysfunctional because I was raised by a single mother, because families come in many forms. Over the ages, children have been raised by aunts, by uncles, by grandparents, by siblings, by cousins, by friends, by benefactors, by the church, by the court, by nannies and by boarding schools. What is critical is that children in all circumstances are loved, respected, nurtured and safe. The construct of a family did not matter to me. The only thing I needed to know when I got home from school was that I had someone there to reassure me, to nurture me and to tell me that I was okay and that life was okay.
Then there is the experience of my wider family. I am the proud godmother of Alice Rose Uhlmann-Foy. She is a precocious young girl with an unbridled passion for potato chips, and she is a girl well on her way to being Prime Minister. I find it impossible to believe that she could have more devoted parents than Elizabeth Uhlmann and Kate Foy. Both know that nothing is more nurturing than the love of family, and the world is a better place because Liz and Kate have two beautiful daughters, Alice Rose and Emma Kathleen. I cannot deny to them anything that I would wish for myself, and the best thing in my life is my marriage. My marriage stabilises me, energises me and constantly encourages me to be better than I am. Liz and Kate know that their life has not been an easy thing for some in our family to reconcile, but we all know that and we understand that, and we love them for it.
I have met with many, many constituents on this issue, and I have been struck by the strength and passion of both sides of the argument. For the most part, both sides have been deeply respectful. However, I have also been struck by the intolerance of a handful of people around this debate calling for tolerance. I have also been offended by the suggestion that those who do not support same-sex marriage are necessarily homophobic. The constituents I have met who are opposed to same-sex marriage are not homophobic. Like those who support it, they are driven by a deep faith and deep morality, and I respect that. But I respectfully disagree.
I call on all of my parliamentary colleagues and activists on both sides to maintain a respectful tone in this debate on this very important issue. It is, after all, a debate that is so deeply personal to so many. I am also firmly of the belief that no church should ever be forced to marry same-sex couples, and I will never support that. But the state already recognises unions like de facto couples that churches do not. Before the law of this Commonwealth, all women and men should be equal, no matter their colour, no matter their creed, no matter their sexual orientation, because people have the right to choose the individual they love, and, if they choose to marry, the state should not stand in their way. Strong relationships are the foundation on which we build a strong community.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (20:11): I have spoken on this issue many times in this chamber and in the main chamber, so I do not think I need to talk in detail about my views on marriage equality other than to summarise and to make a few points very quickly. I respect the fact that within my electorate there are a broad range of views on this issue, and I certainly respect the views of my constituents who might have a view different to my own. But as I have gone about my work—and I have met many people—it has merely served to confirm in my own mind that it would be the right thing to do to amend the Marriage Act to allow people of the same sex to marry. In saying that, I emphasise that I respect the views of those who disagree with me, and I have sought to represent them within my electorate and in this place, but I am firmly of the view that the Marriage Act should be changed—in fact, it will be changed one day; the only question is exactly when it will be changed.
I believe it must be changed for a number of reasons. For a start, you cannot outlaw love. I believe that two people, whether they be a man and a woman or two men or two women, if they love each other, are entitled to the same right to marry as any other couple. I also believe that the Marriage Act as it is currently worded and as it was amended by the Howard government is nothing short of legislated discrimination. This parliament has virtually ended legislated discrimination in a broad range of other acts of parliament, but it is remarkable that in this act the legislated discrimination remains, and I believe that that should be done away with. The way to do away with it is to do away with the requirement that a marriage be between a man and a woman. It should merely be between two people, and that includes two men or two women.
But, having said that, of course churches are private institutions, and they must be allowed to choose who they marry. I think it has been a very important component of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and of previous attempts to bring about marriage equality in this place that, when we do change the Marriage Act—and we will one day—it must be explicit that the churches retain the right to choose who they marry.
This is an issue where I think people should be allowed to follow their hearts, which means that it needs to be a conscience vote. It should be a conscience vote, and I remain very disappointed that the opposition is continuing to refuse to allow a conscience vote. I note that the tradition and the public statements from the Liberal Party make it quite explicit that it is a party that allows its members to follow their conscience on each and every vote. So it is remarkable that, on this matter, the opposition continues to refuse to allow the members of the Liberal Party to do what the Liberal Party has allowed in the past for many other issues, what the Liberal Party says that it is quite proud of, and that is to allow members to follow their conscience. One day they will be allowed to follow their conscience, and I think that will significantly alter the outcome of that vote at that time.
This is not a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition, but I do worry that, although it was famously said that he 'gets' women, I am not sure that he yet 'gets' gay people and their fundamental right to be able to choose who they love and to formalise that with a marriage under the Marriage Act. I call again on the opposition leader to do what his party says it allows and allow his members to follow their conscience and vote accordingly. Then we will know for sure what the genuine will of this parliament is on this issue.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (20:16): In rising to speak to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, I start by acknowledging that there are very strong views on either side of this argument and also within the community. This is the third time that I have spoken on the issue of same-sex marriage. The first was on the member for Melbourne's notice of motion back in 2011 where we were called upon as members of parliament to consult with our communities. The second was on the member for Throsby's private members bill. Each time that I have spoken on this matter it has triggered an avalanche of correspondence in my electorate office.
I take up the point that the member for Denison just made with respect to a conscience vote. I think it is appropriate for members to have a conscience vote on this matter. In saying that, I must declare that I am coming into this debate with a strongly held personal view. My personal view is, and has always been, that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have been told that I am out of step with society and I have been accused of imposing my personal views on the community. It has also been said of me that I have been doing the bidding of the Catholic Church. I, like everybody else, can be influenced by my upbringing, but I have gone to some great length to ensure that I do not impose my personal views on my community.
At one of the ALP conferences, as you would recall, Madam Speaker, where I think you and I both spoke, I got written up for having a view which was not necessarily popular. I got written up then as a vile, rotten politician. This is an issue of conscience and it should not be subject to politicking. It should not be subject to focus groups and surveys or influenced by external negotiations. It is your own personal position. If your views can be so easily affected by external forces, I think that says more about the person than anything about the subject matter that we are discussing.
Recently I was in a discussion with a very good friend of mine, Jim Marsden, a prominent solicitor in Campbelltown. Clearly he has a very strong view about marriage equality and is concerned that my view is out of step with the community. His late brother, John, was a leading solicitor, a champion of civil rights and a person associated with the contemporary developments of Campbelltown. He was a good friend of mine, like his brother, but John was gay. But that in no way affected my relationship with him or diminished my respect for him, his professionalism or the friendship that we shared. But I just cannot find it in me to apologise for the personal views that I hold.
In this debate, I am challenged to put the community view ahead of my own beliefs. In accordance with the motion moved by the member for Melbourne back in 2011, I consulted with my electorate. I actually went to great lengths to do so. I received vast amounts of correspondence. I received four petitions; three of them had over 400 signatures each and the fourth had, from memory, 150 signatures. I conducted an online survey, as I know many other members did, and the feedback I received was overwhelming. I undertook the survey using the same basis that others members used; as a matter of fact, I think we all used the words that were in The Sydney Morning Herald to assess it. However, I got a vastly different result. There were 395 participants in the survey, and the responses demonstrated that in excess of 92 per cent of my electorate were opposed to same-sex marriage. Because I reported it that way, the view was that my survey must have been doctored somehow, but I have no reason to do things like that.
My electorate is very multicultural, it is certainly socioeconomically challenged, and people with disabilities are overrepresented. But it also has a very strong and active, vibrant religious enclave. As I said, I will not come into this place and apologise for my own personal views, but I certainly will not come in here and apologise for the overwhelming view taken by my community.
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (20:21): I rise for the fifth time to speak on a bill to amend the Marriage Act. At the outset, I would like to dispel the myth that members of the Liberal Party are unable to use their conscience vote. Unlike the Labor Party, we are, and I have used it on a number of occasions against my own party. We have the ability to vote with the other side of the parliament or abstain from voting. That is still available to people.
Having said that, I make the point once again: you have to admit that advocates for same-sex marriage are persistent. The member for Melbourne is certainly committed to the process of social engineering. The dogma to destroy the definition of marriage as defined in the Marriage Act is well and truly alive, and it will continue. He and his ilk arrogantly and continually ignore the wishes of the majority of Australians who, through their elected representatives, have emphatically said no to the recognition of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates like the member for Melbourne have placed new meaning on the Fabian Society's process of gradualism, or the drip, drip, drip process of social brainwashing.
I quote from a succinct editorial on page 18 of The Weekend Australian of 29 May 2004, following the debate on the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 which resulted in significant recognition of the rights of homosexuals and reinforces the relentless self-indulgence of the homosexual movement's push for same-sex marriage, despite those generous reforms. The editorial began:
HOMOSEXUAL Australians had a big practical win and a small symbolic defeat this week The Government announced legislation to allow superannuation to pass to a same sex partner without penalty tax. It means that gay and lesbian partners will have the same rights as married couples and heterosexuals in de facto relationships. This is a long overdue and sensible decision that will put an end to a ridiculous restriction on the rights of homosexual couples.
And I agree with that. It went on:
The Government was accused of playing politics, seeking to shore up conservative support. But if this was the Prime Minister's motive it was one Labor was quick to share, saying it would support the legislation restricting marriage to heterosexuals. While gay activists might not like it, the major parties are convinced the community will not wear the idea of same sex marriage.
And nothing has changed. The editorial also said:
Without this legislation, social engineers on the bench and at the bar would likely soon find some contrivance under international law that would bind Australia to acknowledge overseas same sex marriages and adoption rights. Mr Howard is quite right to say that if the definition of marriage is to change it should be done by the people’s elected representatives, not the courts.
Gays who argue this is demeaning and unjust should get over it. There is nothing that prevents priests and celebrants conducting ceremonies for gay couples affirming their decision to live as couples. They may not be married under the law but surely how they, and the people in their lives, perceive their relationship is what matters most.
Fifty-one years ago, I married a wonderful woman in a marriage ceremony which was and is applicable to every Australian resident, without exception, today. The question needs to be asked: how are homosexuals discriminated against when no homosexual is denied marriage under Australian law and marital requirements are, without exception, applicable equally to every Australian resident? Isn't declining to accept marital rules a self-discriminating free choice and not a social or legal discrimination? De facto heterosexual couples are not discriminated against for choosing to refuse marriage, so what is the special obligation or need for homosexuals to marry?
I close off by saying this: I think it is abominable that gay activists continue to focus on and manipulate civil rights strategies to justify claims for same-sex marriage and keep using accusations of discrimination, inequality and homophobia to intimidate politicians and the general public. I represent the majority of my constituents, who know and adhere to the reality that marriage is an accepted bond between a man and a woman. Marriage is a bedrock institution worthy of protection under law. There should be no doubt about what the word 'marriage' means. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that the commonly accepted definition of 'a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others' is again under threat. In response to that, I say this: those who represent that threat will be out of this place in the next couple of months, but my views and the views of my family will not change in relation to the definition of marriage.
Debate interrupted.
Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (20:26): The Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill put forward by the member for Denison is about skills and training. How appropriate it is that we are debating it tonight, because today is National TAFE Day. I joined many of my colleagues earlier tonight to celebrate what our TAFE institutions around the country do in developing skills and training and to send a signal to the New South Wales government in particular and to state governments generally that we do not want them with their hands all over our TAFE institutions. Those institutions play too vital a role in our communities and in our economy, particularly in supporting productivity. We say that we want our TAFE funding retained. The Commonwealth government has been putting significant additional funding into TAFE. Indeed in my own electorate, through the Regional Development Australia grants, money is going into TAFE institutes such as the one at Muswellbrook, where the grant will help it do more in mining skills training in particular. But at the same time Barry O'Farrell is taking money out of TAFE in New South Wales, which is very disappointing.
I am speaking in continuation on this bill. In the other chamber, last sitting week, I made various points about the objectives of this bill and about the real concern of the Australian Institute of Marine Engineers about what this bill could mean for the standard of training accepted for those who work in our shipping industry. I have been an apprentice. I do understand the concept of accelerated training and, in some instances and in some circumstances, it can be a good thing. But we must put sufficient weight on maintaining standards and safety in industry, particularly the marine industry. I was pointing out the objectives of the bill and the views of the minister, but what I was about to say when time expired is that the Australian Institute of Marine Engineers and those whom they represent have some very legitimate concerns. I urge the minister to take those concerns into account and I urge the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to take those concerns into account. I suggest that they put aside any preconceived views and ideas about this issue and that they put aside plans to make the changes—changes including reducing the training requirements for a marine engineer from three years to one year, which to most people in the community would seem rather extraordinary.
We need to get everyone back to the table, to speak about these concerns and see whether we cannot find a way forward. We do not want a Mexican stand-off, we do not want the government digging in, we do not want AMSA digging in and we do not want the institute digging in either. We want people back at the table. They are all sensible people, and the minister is certainly a sensible person. I have great regard for his department and those who advise him; I have great respect for those who work in the industry; and I certainly have great respect for those who represent engineers and others.
There seems to be an impasse here. I know there is goodwill on the part of the institute, and we need determination on their part to address this problem. They do have legitimate concerns; they have been in this industry a long-time. As I said when speaking in the House, surely there is no more important role for government to ensure that we have an efficient and effective shipping industry in this country. Safety should always be paramount and of course going hand-in-hand with safety are standards amongst those who work in the industry, particularly those who maintain and repair our shipping fleets. I urge the minister to take a step back, have a listen to what the institute is having to say, get back to the negotiating table and see whether we cannot get an outcome that satisfies all the parties.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (20:31): I fully support the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013, introduced by the member for Denison, and I support the comments made by each speaker. The bill is intended to prevent a reduction in standards that would apply to the engagement of marine and power engineers. We only have to think of the consequences of that reduction in terms of the safety of vessels, in terms of the impact on our environment and in terms of the health and safety of the other crew members of the vessels upon which marine and power engineers work. We should remember that Australian marine and power engineers are some of the most highly qualified and highly trained engineers in the world.
I have spend a considerable part of my professional life looking at working standards, including occupational health and safety standards. It has been a fundamental tenet of all the principles I have worked for—as it has been for all those I have been involved with in the sector, including on the employee side and on the employer side—that we are about raising standards and not reducing standards. The trouble with the proposals put forward by the department and by the minister, if I might say so with respect, is that it is adopting international standards that are less than Australian standards. What we are about in Australia is lifting standards—particularly in respect of occupational health and safety rather than having a race to the bottom. It is vital for Australian shipping and for the Australian environment that these standards be raised.
Let us reflect on the Exxon Valdez situation and what impact such an incident would have on the Great Barrier Reef. Should a similar accident occur, it would destroy for ever and a day that pristine environment that has international recognition—one of the natural numbers of the world. Think of ships coming through there and, because of a breakdown in machinery, a breakdown in navigational capability as the result of a breakdown in machinery, having an accident on the barrier reef. Again, if we are not working internationally to raise standards, that must be recognised as a possibility. But what we need to do is focus on maintaining Australian standards and, in maintaining Australian standards, lifting its national standards.
It has been a real concern of mine that we have not put enough attention into the security benefits that we obtain from having an efficient and safe functioning Australian maritime capability. We have again, through lowering of standards, through allowing the importation of labour that is not as qualified as we would expect in Australia, diminished the status. You cannot beat in a national security situation having Australian eyes and ears around your coastline. More than that, you cannot benefit from having vessels that are able to not only navigate safely but also to assist those who may become in distress in circumstances where they require Australian assistance.
We are an island continent. We are very much dependent on our sea lanes. To even suggest in this day and age that we reduce rather than lift standards, I think, is complete and utter folly. I commend the honourable member for Denison for moving this bill. I, with my colleague the member for Hunter, fully support it and we again call upon the minister and the minister's department to have regard to its substance.
Debate adjourned.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Papua New Guinea
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:36): Papua New Guinea is a good friend of Australia's. They always have been, particularly from World War II to today. When we have asked for support and help, Papua New Guinea has been there. From the 'fuzzy wuzzy angels' to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea has been a steadfast friend. For that reason I was delighted to take up the opportunity to visit PNG again as part of a joint party parliamentary delegation. Over the six-day journey we travelled from the capital of Port Moresby to the buzzing resource hub of Lae. We met with a wide cross-section of people ranging from the Treasurer of PNG the Hon. Don Polye, the new Australian High Commissioner's Ms Deborah Stokes and her team to local businessmen, the Australian expatriate community and a collection of dedicated workers from various non-government organisations and, importantly, Papua New Guinea citizens.
PNG's political and economic progress is of critical importance to Australia as it is to the citizens of Papua New Guinea. Our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea is facing all the challenges of a developing country. It is essential that we provide our ongoing support as PNG builds on its vigorous democracy to fight the challenges that beset developing countries across the globe—challenges of corruption, continuing violence against women, unequal economic development, effective delivery of government decisions as well as successful completion of the peace process in Bougainville.
The O'Neill government's policy of rebuilding infrastructure within PNG and the boost in spending on health and free education is offering real hope and opportunity. What stood out compared to previous visits was the renewed sense of optimism in New Guinea. We spoke with Treasurer Don Polye about his 2012 budget and about the O'Neill government's plans for PNG's future. Their budget provides for a 41 per cent increase in education spending, a 64 per cent increase in health and a 69 per cent increase for infrastructure.
These policies together with a renewed focus on financial transparency and proprietary are starting to deliver economic benefits for the people of Papua New Guinea, who have often felt alienated from any tangible outcomes of their unprecedented mineral and gas wealth over the last 40 years since independence. It must be said that implementation is and always remains an ongoing challenge for PNG and management of debt will be critical. Mr Polye explained how this O'Neill government budget is the largest ever—one of the 13 billion kina with the economy growing this year by 7.2 per cent, up from a budget estimate of four per cent. He views this as 'the people's budget' to ensure the benefits of strong economic growth are shared more equitably. Importantly, the Treasurer's economic plan, unlike his Australian counterpart, is to lower the cost of living for the PNG people. Mr Polye confirmed that with the first gas expected to be exported in 2014 from the PNG LNG project and the proposed second LNG project, the government will continue with its implementation of the PNG sovereign wealth fund to manage these revenues to underpin long-term social and economic development needs of the country.
Undoubtedly PNG's mining industry, like Australia's, faces the challenges of an uncertain world economy and questions about the rate of growth in China. These challenges are particularly relevant to the potential of notable projects like Freida River, Woodlark, Nautilus and Marengo Mining's Yandera project. The PNG LNG project is of particular interest to Australia with Oilsearch and Santos being key partners in the project. We met with Peter Graham, the managing director of Esso Highlands, the lead company of the PNG LNG project. The first LNG deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2014. So far 80 per cent of the project construction is delivered. There are currently over 19,000 people working on the project. As Mr Graham points out, for many of the PNG workers on the project this was their first foray into work, particularly in the resources sector. To support these workers, over 1.6 million hours and 280 million kina was provided for training to help them develop the skills needed for the project. Significantly, the total direct cash flow to the PNG government and landowners from the LNG project is estimated at $US31.7 billion, or 114 billion kina, over the 30-year life of the project. We also had the opportunity to visit Mick Curtain's remarkable Motukea project, which will be a great asset for the whole region.
During our time in Port Moresby we met with various local community groups. Two organisations that stood out were the Australian funded Australia-Pacific Technical College and Ginigoada Bisnis Development Foundation. APTC, a Howard government initiative, is part of an AusAID funded Pacific program that provides high-quality technical training. The Ginigoada Bisnis Development Foundation conducts five programs aimed at empowering youth through developing skills such as basic literacy, financial literacy, pre-employment skills and development programs. This is critical in PNG as there is a massive shortfall in job opportunities for high school graduates, with over 60 per cent having no further education or training. These programs highlight the opportunity for the Australian government to support simple but effective opportunities for people in developing countries to help themselves.
When I visited PNG previously, I saw first-hand the dire need for better maternal and child healthcare. Currently, PNG has the highest mortality rate in childbirth in the Asia-Pacific, where less than 40 per cent of women deliver their babies under skilled supervision. The recent budget increases in health are an important step forward. I am also proud that AusAID is providing more than $100 million in the 2012-13 financial year. This contributes to the essential training of midwives, community health workers and nurses, the distribution of essential medical supplies and the immunisation of children. I again visited the Port Moresby General Hospital, where Australia is converting our aid money into important health outcomes for the community—words easily said but actions that save lives, change lives and give families genuine support. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new chairman, Sir Theo (George) Constantinou, and his hospital board members, Kathy Johnston, deputy chairman, John Mangos of Digicel and Peter Graham, among others, on their work to upgrade Port Moresby Hospital.
WaterAid, a non-government organisation that improves access to water, sanitation and hygiene in the Highlands, is also having a positive impact. Their country convenor, Rick Steele, described in great detail their project in the Sepik, where they have completed work on a water supply and sanitation system for eight remote villages. So far they have built more than 1,000 toilets in addition to showers and rainwater tanks in eight primary schools. In conjunction with both local government and church groups, WaterAid is providing a fundamental service in PNG, where only 40 per cent of the population have healthy water supplies and sanitation. Currently Australia only spends one per cent of its aid program on sanitation and this figure needs to be lifted.
We also had the opportunity to visit Lae in the Highlands and speak with Governor of Morobe Kelly Naru to see the amazing progress occurring in the region. One of the most interesting organisations we inspected was the Lae City Mission's Suambu Plantation, a 150-acre fruit plantation that has become the home for up to 150 homeless and underprivileged youth who come to Suambu seeking a second chance in life and looking for vocational and agricultural training and employment opportunities. The mission feeds, clothes and provides accommodation and medical treatment for these youth free of charge. They are then assisted to find permanent employment with their new skills, which are in high demand currently in Lae.
Our week-long tour of Papua New Guinea this year has given me a greater sense of optimism. The new world of possibilities provided by the large development projects funded by the resources boom and the new focus of Prime Minister Peter O'Neill's government as they continue to tackle transparency in government, infrastructure projects and education and health in the country are highlighting the way forward for one of our youngest and most exciting regional neighbours. It was also great to meet up with Rimbink Pato, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration, who spoke to us about progress with dual citizenship in Papua New Guinea and the current situation on Manus Island and reiterated Prime Minister O'Neill's strong views about the need for Australia to offer PNG citizens the same ETA visa rights as we do for some 40 other countries around the world.
Finally, I would be remiss not to mention the recent visit to Papua New Guinea by Queensland Premier Campbell Newman. States can play an important role in supporting our near neighbours, and it is clear that Campbell and Prime Minister O'Neill were able to quickly agree on some key areas of support, with policing and health at the forefront. The proposed hospital at Daru, together with Queensland's support, will allow the highest calibre in-country treatment in the fight against drug-resistant tuberculosis, an outcome important for both the people of PNG and the Torres Strait.
Australia has important obligations in assisting our regional friends and neighbours, not in a patronising way but as a genuine friend. I am honoured as an Australian that we have such good friends—indeed, such steadfast friends—as Papua New Guinea.
Newcastle: Economy
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (20:46): It is an interesting time in my city, the city of Newcastle, a time of ongoing economic diversification and transition. With another regional city, Geelong, facing a significant threat to their local economy with the recent announcement by Ford, it is worth comparing our two cities and revisiting the way Newcastle responded to the closure of its then major employer, the BHP steelworks, in 1999. Just like the car industry, the steel industry received considerable investment and subsidies from the federal government over many years, and, just like the car industry, those subsidies sustained the operation of our steel industry for some time. But, while governments can invest, it is companies that make the commercial decisions about how these subsidies are applied, and it is my view that in both these industries too little was done too late. Innovating, driving new markets and supply chain integration are key outcomes of business decisions, and in both cases these companies could have done more earlier to avoid the final closures.
Just like the future closure of Ford's operation in three years time, we in Newcastle had prior knowledge of the intended closure of BHP. With government, we had time to plan for this major event, an event many commentators said would be a catastrophe for our region, but we used that time wisely. We planned for the reskilling of our workforce and ensured that support services were provided to the BHP workforce facing termination, just as the Gillard government is doing now. And, as the Gillard government and the Victorian government have announced assistance funds, we at the time received structural adjustment funding of $20 million each from the state and federal governments.
While the federal allocation under Howard went to individual enterprises, the New South Wales contribution under Bob Carr was directed at the relocation and establishment of the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle. Of the individual enterprise approach, two stand out: the development of the marina in Newcastle and the development of the Stuart piano. The former was a key example of low-risk, long-term diversification. It complemented well the activities of the Port of Newcastle and the activities of the Honeysuckle Development Corporation, which, under federal Labor's Building Better Cities program, was redeveloping former industrial harbourside lands. The marina has added great vibrancy to our city and continues today to sustain employment and leisure related activities, particularly tourism.
The piano was a somewhat high-risk enterprise but highly innovative. The Stuart piano is now world renowned and continues its niche manufacturing—just. The global downturn and the high Australian dollar have had an impact, but the Stuart piano has achieved well-deserved acclaim and hopefully will receive the commercial support it deserves in future.
But investment into the CSIRO Energy Centre is where the real diversification and economic future success came for Newcastle. Last week, CSIRO Newcastle announced a $13 million Future Grid Cluster research collaboration with four universities, including the University of Newcastle. That will provide a framework to assist the electricity sector to make an estimated $240 million worth of decisions in the next two decades, decisions that CSIRO predicts could involve 20 different energy sources and technologies and require sector capacity across the nation to plan and design the most efficient low-emissions electricity grid for Australia. Add that to the work of Ausgrid, federal Labor's Smart Grid Smart City program, and add to that too under the federal government's ARENA the work of CSIRO to improve the best possible solar forecasting for the electricity system to boost levels of solar power on the grid and you are starting to understand the potential this has developed for our city. Add to that the bid by local industry in partnership with local research institutes for Newcastle to be an energy industry innovation precinct and the real long-term value of that $20 million by Bob Carr's Labor government makes amazing economic sense.
I note the Prime Minister today announced the location of the administration headquarters for DisabilityCare Australia would be located in Geelong. This decision by the Gillard Labor government provides for the city of Geelong and its people an embedded federal function to anchor services and to grow the disability service sector, related expertise and research and product development and innovation.
Key to our region's success has been the ability of Newcastle to collaborate and pursue innovation in manufacturing and research. Forging strong partnerships is central. In that way the role of the University of Newcastle and the Hunter Institute of TAFE cannot be underestimated. I note it was a New South Wales Labor government that granted autonomy to our regional university back in 1965 and our current Labor government has invested $22 million to provide new facilities to our TAFE. I have no doubt that the highly regarded Deakin University and the Gordon Institute of TAFE in Geelong will be key partners in Geelong's future prosperity, especially if Labor governments are there to keep investing.
We had another weapon in our structural adjustment armoury and that was the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, founded in 1956 after the devastating Maitland floods of 1955. The Hunter Valley Research Foundation, originally funded by community donations and given major annual sponsorship from the then NSW Labor government, has been integral to informing decisions regarding the regional economy. The economic and social research findings of this foundation have guided the development of the Hunter region for decades. The foundation has become the standard bearer for regional research, playing an indispensable role in data collection and research relevant to our unique regional needs. It has also produced a wellbeing survey—the first in this nation. For regions such as the Hunter, an understanding of our local economy, our population, our health, our manufacturing, our education and our wellbeing is pivotal to achieving growth and prosperity. They therefore play an important part in guiding future investments and strategies. No other institute, including the ABS, provides this information or resource. To the people of Geelong, I encourage them to consider how they might set up an equivalent organisation for their region.
Another key factor to our resilience was industrial harmony. That industrial harmony can be attributed to the leadership of our unions and the leadership provided by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission in Newcastle post the Hawke-Keating accord, a harmony which has continued under Fair Work Australia, which has an office in Newcastle thanks to Julia Gillard and a federal Labor government. This industrial harmony and regional approach has underpinned the resilience of our manufacturers, particularly the coal mining industry, adding further insulation to our economy.
The port of Newcastle is indeed the largest exporter of coal in the world, reaching 121.9 million tonnes last year—a record which it will eclipse this year. But the port now handles more than 40 commodities, including alumina, wheat, steel, cement and fertiliser. That sort of diversification has been part of our success story. Imports of mining related heavy equipment, fuels and other bulk liquids have increased with the port of Newcastle now handling over $20 billion in trade annually and still growing.
So what have these factors had in common? Great leaders is a big part of the answer in many cases. While I will always be grateful for the leadership provided by the previous Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle Professor Nick Saunders and for his contribution to our region's success and to the incumbent Vice-Chancellor Caroline McMillen for the way she too has embraced the potential and aspirations of our region, I also acknowledge the contribution and vision of TAFE Directors Gaye Hart and Phil Cox. Also, tonight I pay particular tribute to three wonderful leaders who are all retiring in 2013—Gary Webb, CEO of the Port of Newcastle; Dr Wej Paradise, CEO of Hunter Valley Research Foundation; and, Deputy President of Fair Work Australia, Rod Harrison. Each of you leaves a marvellous legacy to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter region. For the past 12 years I have had the great pleasure of working with all three of you. Your professionalism and dedication, your absolute commitment to Newcastle and your deep understanding of the part your organisation played in the growth of the local economy and the future welfare of the people was in each case exceptional. Gentlemen, I salute you, and I wish you all great personal satisfaction and happiness in your retirement. You each made Newcastle a better place. Thank you.
Finally, the other common denominator in the ongoing resilience and diversification of our regional economy was the timely and enduring support extended to Newcastle and the Hunter by both federal and state Labor governments. In fact, the greatest threats to our ongoing prosperity are Liberal governments. In New South Wales, the Liberal government has denied the Port of Newcastle the opportunity to further diversify through the development of a container terminal. This decision is a slap in the face to Newcastle and to our future economic growth. It also denies the people of New South Wales the development of new markets and new supply chains, particularly in the agriculture and food production sectors, and the economic and employment growth that this would produce. At the federal level, the continuation of industrial harmony in my region is threatened by any prospect that a Tony Abbott-led government would gain power in the September elections. And if a climate-change denier—as Mr Abbott is—became PM, our clean energy future would be severely hampered too. Under the Howard government, investment into regional Australia meant the regional rorts that saw obscene pork barrelling while seats like mine were missed out entirely. So my message to the good people of Geelong from the Newcastle experience is: put your faith in Labor governments, who genuinely put their faith in you and in your economic success. And be very afraid of a future in your region under a Liberal government, particularly one led by Tony Abbott.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ): The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Trade and Agriculture
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (20:56): I rise tonight to talk about our agricultural industries and to ask the trade minister to ensure that any decisions he makes between now and election time are very much in the national interest and especially in the interests of our agriculture producers. Our agricultural producers are doing it tough. There are a number of things—adverse weather conditions, the dollar, the carbon tax, the re-regulation of the workplace—which are working against producers at this time. I will give you a couple of examples of the types of issues that they are confronting. We have dairy farmers in the south-west of Victoria in my electorate who, due to late rainfall, are now facing having to feed their dairy herds for the next three or four months, paying feed bills of $15,000 to $20,000 a month additional to what they would be normally paying at this time of year and putting extra costs on their business. And obviously with the dollar where it is, demand for our agricultural commodities is soft and prices are soft, making it harder and harder for farmers to operate in the current climate. On top of this they are facing additional costs of anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000 because of the carbon tax. There is also a carbon tax cost on the processors they are selling their milk to—for instance, Murray Goulburn is facing a carbon tax bill of up to $15 million. When you look at what has happened in Europe under the emissions trading scheme there, the dairy processors in Europe have been given access to free permits: they are allocated free permits for up to 93 per cent of their emissions. So not only do the European farmers get subsidies, but their ETS is also subsidised in their favour—whereas our farmers at home get no subsidies and face a carbon tax which gives them no relief whatsoever. The carbon tax is also having a significant impact on our beef industry. One of the abattoirs in my electorate, Midfield Meats, is now sending carcases by air to the Middle East to have them processed over there because the carbon tax has added additional costs to doing that business here in Australia. So they are now airfreighting the carcases to the Middle East because it is cheaper to process them over there. When you combine that with what has happened in the north of Australia as a result of the live export ban and the fact that that is still washing through Australia's beef industry, prices are obviously down and the dollar has impacted on that and we have seen a real decline in the profitability of our beef farmers.
Why do I mention this and also refer to the trade minister having to act in the national interest? I do this because there is a chance that we could see a free trade agreement concluded with Japan before the election on 14 September and there is a remote, outside chance that we could see one concluded with South Korea. If the Japan one is concluded, the trade minister has to make sure that it is not one that is done for the sake of expediency. Japan is our largest dairy market. We have to ensure that, if we are to conclude a free trade agreement with Japan, our dairy farmers and our dairy processors get proper access into that market. It has to be proper access that reduces tariffs and means that we get into that market at a lower cost than what we are now.
I call on the government to make sure that they liaise closely with the Australian dairy industry in finalising any deal when it comes to dairy in that Japan free trade agreement. I would ask that they do the same with our beef sector. Obviously when it comes to our beef sector, the free trade agreement that the government should look at is the one that South Korea has negotiated with the US. That has given improved access to US beef producers into the South Korean market and, over time, the tariffs reduce down to zero per cent. We have to ensure that, when it comes to Japan and, in the future, when it comes to South Korea, we get access to those markets similar to what the US has into the South Korean market.
We cannot say, 'Sorry, we are not prepared to negotiate on auto,' or 'Sorry, we are not prepared to give any ground on investor-state dispute resolution,' as we will give up seeking proper access to those markets for our farmers. We absolutely have to ensure that when we negotiate on behalf of our farmers with Japan and with South Korea, we do what is in the national interest, that we do not do what might be the case and think, 'Wouldn't it be good to get a signature on an agreement before an election,' because this would make the government look good but it would not be in the interest of the country as a whole. So I call on the trade minister to ensure that he does negotiate in good faith.
There are real outcomes that can be achieved. If you look at, for instance, what New Zealand has achieved in their negotiations with China—and this is another agreement that we need to get on the table—you see that the New Zealand dairy industry now has a tariff advantage over Australia of over eight per cent when it comes to getting access for their dairy product into the Chinese market. We have to put the China free trade agreement back on the table as well and we have to make sure that we can get access there. But that is something that will have to wait until after the election.
The one which might occur—and there is a real chance that it could occur before the election—is with Japan. What we have to ensure there is that the trade minister does the right thing by the nation. I would like to put the trade minister on notice: we will be watching if you do look to conclude an agreement before the election and we will be making sure that you are liaising properly with the NFF, with the beef industry and with the dairy industry and ensuring that they are comfortable with any agreement that is finalised. If they are not comfortable with that and if they are excluded in an endgame, which is all about getting a political outcome, then we will make sure that the Australian people know what that agreement is about—it is about political expediency and it is not about what is in the best interests of our nation.
At a time like this, our dairy producers, our beef producers and all of our agricultural sector need a government which is fully committed to reducing the cost of exporting just as they need a government which is fully committed to reducing the cost of production domestically.
Sadly, I think what are going to need is a change of government to see that occur domestically and what we have to make sure of between now and election day is that we do not have a government which comes and makes the cost of exporting remain the same because they think it is in their political interest to get an outcome on a deal.
In summary, what we have to make sure of is that this government between now and the election day does not do anything, because once a deal is signed, they cannot be unravelled and it is almost impossible to go back to the table and push for extra access to push for new sectors to be put on the table. That will all have to be postponed until the Trans-Pacific partnership negotiations take place seriously. Once you have set a precedent in bilateral FTAs in the region, it is going to make it harder for us to negotiate meaningful access through that regional process, so, Mr Trade Minister, be careful; we are watching.
Gas Reserves
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (21:06): Tonight I want to talk about Australia's natural gas reserves and how they can be best used to generate Australian jobs and provide energy to Australian homes. In a few short weeks, parliament will be over and we will return to our electorates. The campaign for the 2013 election will begin in earnest and debate will be joined on the issues around which the next government will be formed. Elections are always a crowded place for discussing detailed policy, but one issue that is worthy of an important national debate is how we best use our bountiful reserves of natural gas to advance the national interest.
Australia is a leader in the supply of natural gas to world markets. Growth in Australian gas and LNG development is set to continue for many years. The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics reports that our LNG exports reach 20 million tonnes, worth $12.4 billion in 2011-12. We will be the third largest exporter in the Asia-Pacific region and the fourth largest in the world. Exports are forecast to exceed 23 million tonnes this year as Western Australia's Pluto facility reaches its full capacity.
Seven major LNG projects are under construction representing more than 60 million tonnes of additional capacity and investment in access of $175 billion. When these projects reach capacity, Australia could be the world's No. 1 LNG exporter by around 2017. Yet more gas projects are in the planning, including the Equus project off Western Australia and the Arrow and Browse projects in Queensland.
Australia's rapid rise in the global LNG production is due to a number of factors: strong demand from our Asia-Pacific trading partners has seen new projects underwritten by some of the world's largest supplier agreements with customers in Japan, China, Korea and India.
The International Energy Agency projects strong global demand for natural gas to 2035. The proportion of Australia's natural gas that has been sold for exports has increased rapidly since 1990. By 2034-35, gas exports are predicted to be more than double Australia's domestic consumption level. In the meantime, New South Wales long-term gas contracts will be expiring at the end of 2016-17. This means that New South Wales must now negotiate new supply contracts at a time when demand for gas on the eastern market will be increasing, largely due to export.
Heavy demand for natural gas is placing pressure on the price we pay. Manufacturing Australia have raised the concern that 'the tight demand and export focus are rapidly driving local prices towards the Japanese net-back levels.
Over the last three years, ACIL Tasman and others have consistently raised price forecasts as domestic users struggle to extend contracts in this very tight environment. Some forecast a rapid doubling of prices, which would make Australia one of the most expensive major gas export markets. This is no small issue for industry, and no small issue for households. Manufacturers consume around 32 per cent of our domestic gas. Electricity generation accounts for another 29 per cent, and mining for 23 per cent. Meanwhile, we have been encouraging households to move to less-carbon-intensive energy sources, including natural gas.
An increase in gas prices will have a dramatic impact on these sectors. Manufacturing Australia says:
If not managed will, substantial sections of Australian manufacturing will be negatively impacted by this near term gas crisis, to the point of reduced production, investment and jobs.
We estimate that 40% of our domestic chemicals industry, 25% of our non-ferrous metals industry and 10% of our other manufacturers (including building products) and 2% of our wood paper and printing industries are at risk.
This is why there is a call for governments to rethink their approach to our gas supply. In an address to the National Press Club recently the head of Dow Chemicals, Andrew Liveris, observed that giving primacy to the export of our raw materials over other considerations is leading to an imbalance in the Australian economy. We use a shorthand: the mining boom.
He drew a contrast with the United States, where the discovery and exploitation of shale gas is being used to restart their manufacturing industry. Indeed, over 500,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created as a result, and millions and millions of dollars are being reinvested in new manufacturing capacity. He makes the point that Australia has to potential to value-add our raw materials, particularly our gas, to increase jobs and national wealth. He says:
It gives us what may be once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a manufacturing renaissance. But only if we make the best use of this vital resource.
Unfortunately, this is not a given.
Some still believe the best thing you can do with a cubic foot of gas is burn it as a fuel, whether for transportation or electricity.
But do that and you get power out of it only once. A one-time value add.
Others want you to export it.
Well, I am all for exporting natural gas—in the solid form, not the liquid.
Here is what I mean by "solid form":
If you do not bum that cubic foot of gas, export it, or sell it immediately...
If you instead take it and use it in advanced chemical processes...
If you use modern technology and convert it into high-value chemicals, plastics, composites, materials, and other high-tech products...
Then you do not just get a one-time value add.
You get, on average, an eight-times value add across the entire economy. This is the work we do at Dow, every day.
There are many within the Australian business community who are calling for a rethink of policy. They are calling for an introduction, for example, of a national interest test for the granting of export licences for gas. Others say that we should be ensuring that there is a secure supply of reasonably priced natural gas for domestic and industrial purposes. They say, further, that reserving a percentage of gas for national use is in the national interest. The DomGas Alliance, a group formed to push for such change, suggests that a 15 per cent domestic gas reservation policy is in the national interest.
These are not fanciful suggestions. They deserve serious consideration. Indeed, in Canada a national interest test has been introduced. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United States, as I have already mentioned, have domestic reservations and, closer to home, Western Australia has a 15 per cent reservation for gas from new fields coming on line. These are the sorts of debates that we should be having. These are the sorts of debates that I will be having with my Labor colleagues. These are the sorts of debates that I will be raising in my electorate in the lead-up to the 2013 September election.
As I said at the outset, elections are always crowded places for discussing detailed policy, but this issue is worthy of an important national debate. When we look across the Pacific and we see countries such as the United States—once seen as a basket case for manufacturing and manufacturing jobs—seeing over 500 million jobs being created and billions of dollars being invested in new manufacturing capacity, we say that there is a way forward powered by our bountiful supply of natural gas. As Mr Liveris said in his National Press Club speech: 'You burn it, you use it once; you export it, you get the export value once; but if you look at our natural gas supply not only as a source of energy but as a feedstock for complex petrochemical and other manufacturing industries then the world is our oyster.'
Elections are crowded places for discussing detailed policy, and I have no doubt that we will have a heated debate around the pricing of other energy sources, but I wager that, when we look down the track and we think of the policy considerations that we can have that will have a lasting impact and the right impact on the way that we use our domestic resources, this will be a lot more important than debates, for example, around carbon pricing. How we use our bountiful supplies of natural gas to advance the national interest, to create good sustainable jobs now and into the future—jobs not just for now but jobs into the future—and how we use our bountiful supply of natural gas to transform our domestic use and our industrial use to a cleaner energy future are the sorts of debates that we need to be having in the course of this federal election. These are the issues that I will be raising, as I said, in my party room and in my electorate, because they are too important and this is too important an opportunity to let this issue be put aside.
Hasluck Electorate: Aircraft Noise
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (21:16): My electorate is located in the eastern suburbs of Perth, an area that is in close proximity to the Perth airport. Whilst my community has been fortunate to benefit from both tourism and the mining boom, particularly through employment for many residents in my electorate and the many small businesses that have been created as a result, the mining boom has also brought a significant increase in the number of aircraft flying in and out of the Perth airport. This and the changes to the flight paths in 2008 have had a substantial impact on residents of several suburbs of my electorate. I want to clarify that this is not a concern that has emerged recently; in fact, it is an issue that residents in my community have been contending with since 2008 or earlier.
I want to commend my colleagues, the member for Swan and the member for Pearce, who have been fighting tirelessly for not only their residents but also all Perth residents affected by aircraft noise. Over the last seven years they have been strong advocates for noise amelioration for residents affected by aircraft noise. Although this is not a new issue, that certainly does not detract or lessen the noise pollution that the residents of my community are experiencing. Residents of South Guildford, Guildford, Caversham, High Wycombe, Maddington, Woodbridge and the Hills are all experiencing loud aircraft noise, and, by all reports, the noise continues to worsen as the capacity of the airport grows and the number of flights each day increases.
I would like to share what aircraft noise actually means for the residents of these suburbs, many of whom have lived in their homes before the flight paths were altered and this issue emerged. Aircraft noise is not a background rumble like that of a radio providing friendly commentary; rather, the noise the residents of my community are experiencing is so loud that it is keeping them awake at night and is making it impossible to conduct conversations over the noise.
I can attest to just how loud this can be. In the last couple of weeks I have been out in my electorate door-knocking in the suburb or Woodbridge. Whilst I was speaking to some residents I was forced on several occasions to pause the conversation mid-sentence for half a minute while a flight passed by overhead. It would simply have been impossible to be heard above the roar of the aircraft. This experience is so renown that it is known as the 'Guildford pause'. Recently I was at one of my local schools for a service, where the service had to be stopped during the space of a few minutes to ensure that the guest speaker was heard above the thunderous roar of the aircraft flying directly overhead.
Unfortunately for those it affects, aircraft noise is a significant concern. It has a genuine impact on the lives of those living or working under flight paths. It is disappointing that unfortunately, historically, this is a concern that federal government has been reluctant to become involved with, particularly when it comes to Perth airport. Despite considerable community support for public consultation around the changes that would ameliorate aircraft noise, aircraft noise is treated differently in Perth to other capital cities. Perth residents have been denied the opportunity to have changes implemented that would offer benefits, such as aircraft noise insulation schemes or, at worst, curfews. Residents in Sydney and Adelaide benefit from aircraft noise insulation schemes and other noise amelioration measures, but Perth continues to receive no such schemes or curfews. Residents are currently forced to foot the bill for any efforts that they have made to reduce aircraft noise, unlike residents in Sydney and Adelaide, who receive government assistance.
One resident of mine living in High Wycombe recently wrote to me in disbelief. He and his wife are desperate to reduce the amount of noise they are experiencing while inside their house. They have investigated the option of having insulation put into their roof but have been quoted nearly $6,000 to do so. I cannot imagine that this gentleman and his wife, like many residents in my community, have a mere $6,000 easily accessible to have such a measure installed.
This government has rebuffed Perth residents' efforts to have their experiences recognised in a way that would provide them with some relief. In fact, it was only a few months ago in this place that a private members' bill, the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill, was presented by the member for Pearce and the member for Swan and was voted down by this Labor government. It is disappointing that this Labor government ignored the pleas of residents not only in my electorate but also in the electorates of Swan and Pearce, to vote with the Independents.
It would seem that there has been little public consultation on or consideration of this important issue, and unfortunately the residents who are most affected by these changes do not feel that they are able to contribute to the decision-making process. This is attested to by the fact that, since the flight path changes in 2008, residents have not been successful in achieving any kind of noise amelioration.
As a community, we need to come together and have a serious and practical conversation about how best to manage concerns around the aircraft noise. I know that some of my residents are calling for a curfew to allow them to have a reprieve in the evenings from the constant roar of the flights, which are sometimes only minutes apart. But, rather than jumping to an all-or-nothing approach, it is important that we consider every available option to manage this issue while providing assistance to those affected by aircraft noise. It is for this reason that I sit on the Perth Airport Aircraft Noise Management Consultative Committee and the Community Aviation Consultation Group. I want to ensure that the residents of my community have every possibility of having their voices heard and to thoroughly investigate every option available.
I recently wrote to the Perth Airport Aircraft Noise Management Consultative Committee and the Community Aviation Consultation Group, asking them to consider placing a temporary noise monitor in High Wycombe to determine the full impact of the aircraft noise on those residents living in High Wycombe. I would also like to add that, while working with these groups, I have encountered some passionate locals and community organisations, including the Guildford Association, who have been community champions for this issue. Members of the Guildford Association have undertaken extensive research into this issue and have been invaluable in the fight to achieve a positive outcome for our region.
Currently, there is a review of the noise monitors for 2014, and as part of this process I have submitted a recommendation for one to be placed in High Wycombe. I am aware that Guildford has a permanent noise monitor and should continue to have a permanent noise monitor, due to the large impact that aircraft noise has on residents. But Guildford is not the only suburb that is affected by aircraft noise, and often it is different flight paths causing concerns to different areas of my electorate. It is important that we also monitor those impacts in other areas such as High Wycombe, which is in close proximity to the airport.
I want to emphasise that aircraft noise is treated differently in Perth to other capital cities. Residents in Sydney and Adelaide benefit from aircraft noise insulation schemes and other amelioration measures, but Perth receives nothing.
In fact, I note that in this year's budget was a $5-million amount set aside for noise insulation measures for a church building. Unfortunately, there has been no such recognition for anywhere in Perth. Due to the mining Western Australians enjoy and the opportunity of flexible employment—many within my electorate are part of the fly-in fly-out community—these individuals and families benefit from increased flight opportunities out of Perth.
As long as we have a strong mining industry and a healthy population, there will be a high demand for air travel in Western Australia. But in no way should this mean that the people on the ground living in our community are forced to ensure unbearable noise levels. I believe there should be a noise insulation scheme in Perth protecting residents most affected by aircraft noise. Residents of my local communities deserve the benefits of the same measures in other places such as Sydney and Adelaide.
Debate interrupted.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:27
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Resources, Energy and Tourism: Staffing
(Question No. 1443)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of Program 3 of his department,
(a) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual,
(b) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each,
(c) what was the total cost of staffing for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13 (to date), and
(d) what proportion (in dollars and as a percentage) of program support funding was/is allocated to the implementation of the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy for (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15, and (v) 2015-16.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) As at 20 March 2013, a total of 80 staff were employed by the Tourism Division, comprising:
(i) 63 full-time staff.
(ii) 9 part-time staff.
(iii) 8 casual staff (of these, 7 were full-time and 1 was part-time).
(b) Tourism Division can employ staff ranging from APS2 to SES Band 2. Salary ranges for these classifications are outlined below.
Classification |
Salary Range |
APS2 |
$46,680 - $52,467 |
APS3 |
$53,166 - $58,204 |
APS4 |
$59,256 - $65,098 |
APS5 |
$66,092 - $70,744 |
APS6 |
$72,729 - $83,106 |
Executive Level 1 |
$92,117 - $100,814 |
Executive Level 2 |
$112,427 - $127,232 |
SES Band 1 |
$150,000 - $212,000 |
SES Band 2 |
$213,000 - $265,000 |
(c) (i) Employee expenses for Tourism Division in 2011-12 were $9.16 million.
(ii) Employee expenses for Tourism Division in 2012-13 (as at 28 February 2013) were $5.97 million.
(d) Consistent with broader Australian Public Service practice, the Tourism Division's operating budget is applied flexibly to meet ongoing and emerging priorities. Implementation of the National Long‑Term Tourism Strategy underpins much of the work undertaken within the Division.
Resources, Energy and Tourism: Staffing
(Question No. 1444)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of Tourism Research Australia,
(a) what was/is the total operating budget for (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15, and (v) 2015-16,
(b) of that, what is the (i) Commonwealth contribution, (ii) state tourism organisation contribution, and (iii) other external revenue, for each of the same periods,
(c) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual,
(d) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each, and
(e) what was/is the total cost of staffing for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13 (to date).
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i) TRA operating budget in 2011-12 - $8.37 million.
(ii) TRA operating budget in 2012-13 - $9.87 million.
TRA operating budgets beyond 2012-13 have not been determined at this stage.
(b) A breakdown of TRA operating budgets for 2011-12 and 2012-13 is provided below.
2011-12 |
|
Commonwealth Appropriation |
$5.37 m |
States and Territories |
$2.88 m |
Other External Revenue |
$0.12 m |
Total |
$8.37 m |
2012-13 |
|
Commonwealth Appropriation |
$6.97 m |
States and Territories |
$2.77 m |
Other External Revenue |
$0.13 m |
Total |
$9.87 m |
(c) As at 20 March 2013, a total of 24 staff were employed by TRA. A staffing break down is provided below.
(i) 20 full-time staff.
(ii) 2 part-time staff.
(iii) 2 casual staff (both working full time).
(d) Tourism Research Australia can employ staff ranging from APS2 to SES Band 1. Salary ranges for these classifications are outlined below.
Classification |
Salary Range |
APS2 |
$46,680 - $52,467 |
APS3 |
$53,166 - $58,204 |
APS4 |
$59,256 - $65,098 |
APS5 |
$66,092 - $70,744 |
APS6 |
$72,729 - $83,106 |
Executive Level 1 |
$92,117 - $100,814 |
Executive Level 2 |
$112,427 - $127,232 |
SES Band 1 |
$150,000 - $212,000 |
(e) Employee expenses for Tourism Research Australia in 2011-12 were $2.73 million.
Employee expenses for Tourism Research Australia in 2012-13 (as at February 2013) were $1.90 million.
National Long-Term Tourism Strategy
(Question No. 1445)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of the Government's $6 million election commitment for the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy, (a) what sum was/will be allocated in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13, (iv) 2013-14, (v) 2014-15, (vi) 2015-16, and (vii) outside the forward estimates, and (b) how will it be allocated to each working group.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i) 2010-11 $nil.
(ii) 2011-12 $1.4 million.
(iii) 2012-13 $1.4 million.
(iv) 2013-14 $1.4 million.
(v) 2014-15 $1.8 million.
(vi) 2015-16 $nil.
(vii) No funding has been allocated outside the forward estimates.
(b) The allocation of funds to the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy working groups under Tourism 2020 is determined by Tourism Ministers, with some funds retained by the Department to support the implementation of the Strategy.
An outline of funding provided to Working Groups since the inception of the Strategy is provided in the response to Parliamentary Question 1446.
Tourism
(Question No. 1453)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of his department's commitment to deliver the provision of accurate, timely and effective policy advice to the Minister and Government on tourism related issues, (a) what number of speeches has his department drafted for (i) his use, and (ii) the use of other Government Members of Parliament or staff, (b) which Government Members of Parliament have had his department draft speeches for them, (c) what number of media releases has his department drafted for (i) his use, and (ii) the use of other Government Members of Parliament or staff, which Government Members of Parliament have had his department draft media releases for them, and (d) what total number of briefing notes were sent to his office from the Tourism Division in (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11, (iv) 2011-12, and (v) 2012-13 (to date).
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i), (ii) & b) For the 2012-13 financial year to date the department has drafted 49 Speeches. The Department does not record who delivers each speech but is aware that some of these are delivered by other members of Parliament representing the Minister
(c) (i) & (ii) For the 2012-13 financial year to date the department has drafted 145 Media Releases. The Department does not record who the media release is for but is aware that some of these are provided to other members of Parliament for distribution.
(d) (i) 444 (ii) 528 (iii) 523 (iv) 564 (v) 446
Tourism Australia: Staffing
(Question No. 1456)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of Tourism Australia, (a) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual, (b) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each, and (c) what was the total cost of staffing for (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, and (iii) 2012-13 (to date).
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
( a) There were a total of 210 staff employed at Tourism Australia as at 20 March 2013:
(i)full time – 182
(ii)part time – 28
(iii)casual – 0
( b) There are seven bands with a salary range of:
Band |
Minimum |
Maximum |
7 |
$309,000 |
$355,000 |
6 |
$170,000 |
$270,000 |
5 |
$90,000 |
$245,000 |
4 |
$62,000 |
$195,000 |
3 |
$20,000* |
$141,000 |
2 |
$15,000* |
$110,000 |
1 |
$0.00 |
$75,000 |
* please note that these are junior staff members in India and China where salary levels and the strong Australian dollar impact.
( c) Total cost of staffing as at 20 March 2013:
(i)2010-11 – $26.3 million
(ii)2011-12 – $26.4 million
(iii)2012-13 (as at 20 March 2013) – $19.5 million
Tourism Australia
(Question No. 1457)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of Tourism Australia's corporate cost savings measures, in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12, and (d) 2012-13 (to date), (i) what number was implemented, (ii) was each measure ongoing or non-ongoing, (iii) what sum did each measure save, and (iv) what was the total cost of the measures.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) to (c) Tourism Australia had no formal budget savings measures in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.
(d) (i) In 2012-13 Tourism Australia reduced support costs through four measures:
(1) Reduction in contractors and consultants costs
(ii) Ongoing
(iii) Over $1 million in savings are forecast in 2012-13.
(iv) Nil cost to implement
(2) Implementation of reduced budgets and tighter restrictions on staff travel
(ii) Ongoing
(iii) Tourism Australia reduced its staff travel budget by 21% or $722,000 for 2012-13.
(iv) Nil cost to implement
(3) Implementation of a managed print service for onsite printing minimising costs for paper, toners and equipment.
(ii) Ongoing
(iii) $100,000 to date (at 20 March 2013.
(iv) Nil cost to implement
Tourism Australia: Staffing
(Question No. 1458)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
In respect of Tourism Australia, in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, and (c) 2012-13 (to date), what number of staff have left through (i) resignation, (ii) redundancy, and (iii) other, and what total sum was spent on recruitment.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Year |
Resignation |
Redundancy |
Other |
Total |
Recruitment spend |
2010-11 |
27 |
2 |
7 |
36 |
$ 448,955 |
2011-12 |
29 |
5 |
14 |
48 |
$ 215,685 |
2012- 2013 (as at 21 March 2013) |
26 |
1 |
5 |
32 |
$ 181,780 |
Tourism Australia
(Question No. 1459)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
What number of premises is leased by Tourism Australia, and (a) what is the (i) per square metre, and (ii) total rental, cost per financial year for each premises, and (iii) address of each premises, and (b) in instances where the premises joins another agency, what financial contribution is made by that agency.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows:
Copies of the attachments can be obtained from the House of Representatives Table Office.
Tourism Australia: Events
(Question No. 1464)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
In respect of each trade event that Tourism Australia organised or participated in during (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12, and (d) 2012-13 (to date), (i) what was the name of each event, (ii) where was each event held (country, state, city), and (iii) what was the financial cost incurred by Tourism Australia, and (iv) what profit was returned to Tourism Australia.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
a) (i)-(ii) 2009-10 Global Trade Events
Event |
Date |
Country |
OzTalk North America |
07/08/09–09/08/09 |
United States |
India Mega Famil and Workshop (IMFW) |
10/08/09–14/08/09 |
Australia (Gold Coast) |
Corroboree – The Americas |
11/09/09–14/09/09 |
Australia (Adelaide) |
International French Travel Market (IFTM – formerly Top Resa) |
22/09/09–25/09/09 |
France |
Otdykh Leisure Show Moscow |
22/09/09–25/09/09 |
Russia |
Dreamtime |
12/10/09–6/10/09 |
Australia (Sydney) |
Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) |
08/11/09–2/11/09 |
China |
World Travel Market (WTM) |
09/11/09–12/11/09 |
United Kingdom |
China International Travel Mart (CITM) |
19/11/09–22/11/09 |
China |
The European Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition (EIBTM) |
01/12/09–03/12/09 |
Spain |
International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) |
07/12/09–10/12/09 |
France |
Vakantiebeurs (VAK) |
12/01/10–17/01/10 |
Netherlands |
G'Day USA (Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York) |
13/01/10–27/01/10 |
United States |
FITUR 2010 |
20/01/10–24/01/10 |
Spain |
FESPO |
28/01/10–31/01/10 |
Switzerland |
Borsa Internazionale del Turismo (BIT) |
18/02/10–21/02/10 |
Italy |
Confex |
23/02/10–25/02/10 |
United Kingdom |
Japan Australia Mission (JAM) |
24/02/1025/02/10 |
Japan |
Korea Travel Mission (KTM) |
26/02/10 |
Japan |
South Africa Workshop |
01/03/10–05/03/10 |
South Africa |
Asia Pacific Incentives & Meetings Expo (AIME) |
02/03/10–03/03/10 |
Australia (Melbourne) |
Internationale Tourismus Börse (ITB) |
10/03/10–14/03/10 |
Germany |
Team Australia Business Events Educational (TABEE) |
15/03/10–17/03/10 |
China |
European New Product Workshop |
16/03/10–18/03/10 |
United Kingdom |
OZTalk New Zealand |
19/03/10–21/03/10 |
New Zealand |
New Product Workshop USA |
25/03/10–26/03/10 |
United States |
'See Australia' Latin Famil Workshop |
30/04/10 |
Australia (Sydney) |
Corroboree Europe |
06/05/10–08/05/10 |
Australia (Melbourne) |
The Worldwide Exhibition for Incentive Travel, Meetings & Events (IMEX) |
25/05/10–27/05/10 |
Germany |
Australian Tourism Exchange (ATE) |
29/05/10–04/06/10 |
Australia (Adelaide) |
b) (i)-(ii) 2010-11 Global Trade Events
Event |
Date |
Country |
India Travel Mission (ITM) |
30/08/10–01/09/10 |
India |
Japan Australia Mission Down Under (JAM) |
06/09/10–08/09/10 |
Australia (Gold Coast) |
Corroboree – The Americas |
10/09/10–13/09/10 |
Australia (Hamilton Island) |
PATA Travel Mart |
14/09/10–17/09/10 |
China |
Pacific Area Incentives and Conferences Expo (PAICE) |
15/09/10–15/09/10 |
New Zealand |
South East Asia Mission (SEAM) |
20/09/10–22/09/10 |
Vietnam |
International French Travel Market (IFTM) |
21/09/10–24/09/10 |
France |
Otdykh Leisure Show Moscow |
21/09/10–24/09/10 |
Russia |
Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) |
31/10/10–03/11/10 |
China |
World Travel Market (WTM) |
08/11/10–11/11/10 |
United Kingdom |
China International Travel Mart (CITM) |
18/11/10–21/11/10 |
China |
The European Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition (EIBTM) |
30/11/10–02/12/10 |
Spain |
ATEC Meeting Place |
02/12/10–02/12/10 |
Australia (Sydney) |
International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) |
06/12/10–09/12/10 |
France |
Vakantiebeurs (VAK) |
11/01/11–16/01/11 |
Netherlands |
G'Day USA |
15/01/11–29/01/11 |
United States |
FITUR |
19/01/11–23/01/11 |
Spain |
FESPO |
27/01/11–30/01/11 |
Switzerland |
European New Product Workshop |
08/02/11–10/02/11 |
United Kingdom |
Asia Pacific Incentives & Meetings Expo (AIME) |
15/02/11–16/02/11 |
Australia (Melbourne) |
Borsa Internazionale del Turismo (BIT) |
17/02/11–20/02/11 |
Italy |
Confex |
01/03/11–03/03/11 |
United Kingdom |
Internationale Tourismus Börse (ITB) |
09/03/11–13/03/11 |
Germany |
Australian Tourism Exchange (ATE) |
04/04/11–08/04/11 |
Australia (Sydney) |
Latin Famil Workshop |
04/05/11-04/05/11 |
Australia (Sydney) |
Korea Workshop and Famil |
10/05/11-10/05/11 |
Australia (Melbourne) |
Australia Asia Road Show |
12/05/11–26/05/11 |
Asia |
ATEC Symposium |
18/05/11–18/05/11 |
Australia (Hamilton Island) |
The Worldwide Exhibition for Incentive Travel, Meetings & Events (IMEX) |
24/05/11–26/05/11 |
Germany |
Corroboree Europe |
02/06/11–05/06/11 |
Australia (Darwin) |
The Americas Meeting & Events Exhibitions (AIBTM) |
21/06/11–23/06/11 |
United States |
c) (i)-(ii) 2011-12 Global Trade Events
Event |
Held |
Country |
India Travel Mission (ITM) |
25–28 August 2011 |
India |
China Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition (CIBTM) |
30 August – 1 September 2011 |
China |
Japan Australia Mission (JAM) |
31 August – 2 September 2011 |
Japan |
International French Travel Market (IFTM) |
20–23 September 2011 |
France |
TTG Incontri |
6–8 October 2011 |
Italy |
IMEX America |
11–12 October 2011 |
USA |
European Meetings & Incentive Travel Exchange |
17–19 October 2011 |
UK |
Corroboree 2011 – The Americas |
29–31 October 2011 |
Australia |
Korea Travel Mission |
3–4 November 2011 |
South Korea |
Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) |
6–9 November 2011 |
China |
World Travel Market (WTM) |
7–10 November 2011 |
UK |
Pacific Area Incentives and Conferences Expo (PAICE) |
9 November 2011 |
New Zealand |
Dreamtime |
13–18 November 2011 |
Australia |
European Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition (EIBTM) |
29 November – 1 December 2011 |
Spain |
International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) |
5–8 December 2011 |
France |
ATEC Meeting Place |
8 December 2011 |
Australia |
G'Day USA |
12–15 January 2012 |
USA |
CONFEC Red |
2–5 February 2012 |
Spain |
Asia Pacific Incentives and Meetings Expo (AIME) |
21–22 February 2012 |
Australia |
Internationale Tourismus Borse (ITB) |
7–11 March 2012 |
Germany |
European New Product Workshop |
19–21 March 2012 |
UK |
Indonesia Sales Mission |
18–21 April 2012 |
Indonesia |
cruise3sixty |
25–30 April 2012 |
USA |
ATEC Symposium |
2 May 2012 |
Australia |
Australia Asia Roadshow |
12–26 May 2012 |
Asia |
Worldwide Exhibition of Incentive Travel, Meetings & Events (IMEX) |
22–24 May 2012 |
Germany |
International Luxury Travel Market Asia |
4–7 June 2012 |
China |
Australian Tourism Exchange |
15–21 June 2012 |
Australia |
Americas Meeting and Events Exhibition (AIBTM) |
19–21 June 2012 |
USA |
d) (i)-(ii) 2012-13 Global Trade Events (to date):
Event |
Date |
Country |
Association Congress |
15-17 July 2012 |
United Kingdom |
India Mega Famil and Workshop (IMFW) 2012 |
1-6 September 2012 |
Australia |
China, Incentive Travel and Business Meetings Exhibition(CIBTM) |
12-14 September 2012 |
China |
Australia's National Landscapes Forum 2012 |
18-20 September 2012 |
Australia |
Brazilian Tour Operators Association Tradeshow (BRAZTOA) |
21-22 September |
Brazil |
South East Asia Mission (SEAM) 2012 |
23-25 September 2012 |
Malaysia |
Nature Adventure / New Product Workshop |
October |
USA |
IMEX America |
9-11 October 2012 |
USA |
TTG Incontri 2012 |
18-20 October 2012 |
Italy |
World Travel Market (WTM) 2012 |
5-8 November 2012 |
United Kingdom |
PAICE |
13 November 2012 |
New Zealand |
Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) 2012 |
13-16 November 2012 |
China |
EIBTM 2012 |
27-29 November 2012 |
Spain |
ATEC Meeting Place 2012 |
28 November 2012 |
Australia |
International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) 2012 |
3-6 December 2012 |
France |
G'Day USA Australia Week |
11-22 January 2013 |
USA |
European New Product Workshop (NPW) 2013 |
5-7 February 2013 |
United Kingdom |
AIME |
26-27 February 2013 |
Australia |
Internationale Tourismus Borse (ITB) |
6-10 March 2013 |
Germany |
North Asia Business Events Australia Showcase |
8-12 April 2013 |
China & Korea |
Association Congress |
21 – 23 April 2013 |
Portugal |
World Travel Mart Latin America |
23-25 April |
Brazil |
Australian Tourism Exchange |
26-30 April 2013 |
Australia |
South East Asia Business Events Showcase |
9-16 May 2013 |
Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia |
Corroboree Europe |
17-19 May 2013 |
Australia |
IMEX Europe |
21-23 May 2013 |
Germany |
International Luxury Travel Market Asia |
3-6 June 2013 |
China |
AIBTM |
11-13 June 2013 |
USA |
(iii) 2009-10: $6, 912,547
2010-11: $7,595,579
2011-12: $6,106,717
2012-13: $5,868, 603 (year to date as at 21 March 2013)
(iv) Tourism Australia does not make a profit on events. Costs recovered are the same as the operative costs provided at (iii):
2009-10: $6, 912,547
2010-11: $7,595,579
2011-12: $6,106,717
2012-13: $5,868, 603 (year to date as at 21 March 2013)