The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Afghanistan
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (10:01): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Afghanistan from 28 April to 1 May 2013. This visit was the first official delegation of Australian parliamentarians to be received by the National Assembly of Afghanistan. The visit to the seat of government in Kabul represented a historic shift in Australia's bilateral relationship with Afghanistan. The main aim of the delegation's visit was to strengthen the relationship between the parliaments of Afghanistan and Australia and, as part of this, a long-term commitment to friendship between our nations and to regional security and development. The aims were to obtain a greater appreciation of Afghanistan's governance and development challenges, something we heard a lot about; to assess the effectiveness of Australia's current trade and aid related programs and supports; and to establish a firm bond of trust for future parliamentary and intergovernment engagement for the future.
BILLS
High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be introducing the first private member's bill of the 44th Parliament.
Nation building requires forward thinking.
Governments that take nation building seriously look well beyond the electoral cycle to contemplate the big infrastructure projects that will benefit future generations.
For many years now, it has been suggested that Australia should develop a high-speed rail line linking Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra.
That is why I commissioned a study in two parts that involved extensive consultation with industry, including international operators of high-speed rail as well as significant community input to maximise the effectiveness of the study.
It was completed in two parts so that transparency could be maximised. It was published in full, including the business case for the project, consideration of environmental issues, projections of patronage, proposed route, proposed stations and proposed time lines. There are detailed maps available, indeed, whereby people can see exactly what the proposed route is.
It found that high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia is a viable proposition but that it does face challenges.
It is a nation-building project—a track covering 1,748km and passing through four major cities.
It is visionary, requiring consideration of where our society and its transport needs will be decades from now.
High-speed rail will almost certainly run up against political hurdles. It would be delivered over decades under the stewardship of multiple parliaments in Canberra and the other four jurisdictions involved.
It would also be an engineering challenge, requiring at least 80km of tunnels, including 67km in Sydney alone.
Despite all these challenges, high-speed rail also has huge potential, particularly if we consider where our society is headed over coming decades. We can anticipate that an increasing population and the growing need for a carbon constrained economy will drive the economics of this project ever more positively over time.
The study I released in April this year, which I commissioned as minister, found that high-speed rail would return, for the Sydney to Melbourne section, $2.15 in economic benefit for every dollar invested. It would be a major regional economic development initiative.
A challenge of this scale needs serious forward planning.
The first step is to begin to secure the corridor.
That is why this bill seeks parliament's support for the High-Speed Rail Planning Authority.
This bill will establish the structure across governments to ensure we maintain the momentum generated by the recent strategic studies.
The bill would establish the High-Speed Rail Planning Authority as a vehicle for long-term Commonwealth leadership to progress this project. This is critical. Without Commonwealth leadership, high-speed rail will never happen.
The Commonwealth has to bring together the state governments, local councils, landholders, potential private sector investors and others to guarantee a cross-jurisdictional approach. And we need to develop that process now.
Inaction now means years will pass and, by the time market conditions shift to the point of supporting high-speed rail, the complex challenges I listed before could have grown insurmountable.
I am hopeful, therefore, that this bill will win support across this parliament—given the rhetoric of people across this parliament.
Planning is not a political issue. It is just common sense.
I must say I had been concerned about the future of high-speed rail given the decision of the Prime Minister in November to wind up the High-Speed Rail Advisory Group. The members of this committee included former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, Business Council of Australia Chief Executive, Jennifer Westacott, and Australasian Railway Association chief executive, Bryan Nye. It was chaired by the deputy secretary of my former department, Lyn O'Connell. The aim of this private member's bill—to formally create a planning authority—is in accordance with its recommendations.
Last year Mr Fischer told The Border Mail the link would be 'a huge leap forward' for decentralisation and that long-term planning was vital to prevent the corridor from being absorbed by urban sprawl.
I agree.
It would be a shame to lose the momentum from the major strategic studies of the last three years.
That momentum has built up over successive phases.
Under this private member's bill, an 11-person high-speed rail authority would bring together all affected states as well as rail and engineering experts to progress planning and, critically, focus on the corridor. The 11 members of the board are outlined in the bill. They would include:
one member from each of the states affected—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory;
one member representing the Local Government Association;
one member nominated by the Australasian Railway Association; and
five members appointed by the minister for infrastructure on the basis of qualifications or expertise—
to make sure that you got that engineering expertise on the authority.
The authority's roles would include consideration of:
land use planning relating to the corridor;
safety;
measures to minimise environmental impact; and
public consultation.
The states, councils and landholders along the possible route have a very direct interest in ensuring that, if this project is viable, an orderly process is in place to bring it to fruition.
Big ideas do not happen without leadership.
If we do not start planning now, our lack of foresight could ensure high-speed rail cannot happen.
High-speed rail exists in every continent other than Australia and Antarctica. It is globally recognised as an extremely effective mode of transport and a driver of economic productivity.
Society is always changing.
What might seem unlikely now could be a necessity in the future, particularly when we consider the need to reduce carbon emissions to deal the effects of climate change.
It might seem convenient now to just take a wait-and-see approach—to sit on this idea for a few years.
But I am into nation building and nation building requires planning.
Earlier I referred to the high-speed rail study phase 2 report, which I released on 11 April this year.
It said population and employment growth along the east coast of Australia in coming years would challenge the capacity of our existing modes of transport.
Travel on the east coast of Australia was forecast to grow about 1.8 per cent per year over the next two decades and to increase by 60 per cent by 2035.
The report said that east coast trips will double from 152 million trips in 2009 to 355 million trips in 2065. It is simply not possible to accommodate that growth on existing road and existing air links. That is why we need to make sure that we act now by setting up this authority.
The report found that once the line was fully operational from 2065 across the Brisbane to Melbourne corridor, high-speed rail could carry approximately 84 million passengers each year.
People would be able to travel from Melbourne to Sydney in less than three hours—the same duration of an express trip from Sydney to Brisbane.
The report found the optimal staging would involve building the Sydney to Melbourne line first, starting with the Sydney to Canberra corridor.
Later, building would continue from Canberra to Melbourne, Newcastle to Sydney, Brisbane to the Gold Coast and the Gold Coast to Newcastle.
The entire project would cost $114 billion in 2012 dollars.
The report found that fares would produce only a small investment return and that governments would need to fund most of the capital costs.
However, over time, the system could generate sufficient revenue to meet operating costs without ongoing public subsidy. And that is important.
Conclusion
High-speed rail represents a major challenge for our country.
Although there is a significant cost involved, it does have the potential to revolutionise travel in this country and to reduce carbon emissions.
And I am not just talking about travel between the big state capitals.
Consider the benefits to the regions through which the train would travel.
Consider the jobs involved in construction, the boost to tourism and to opening up dozens of communities to fast, easy high-speed transport.
Vision is important in governing nations.
Nation builders need the ability to both anticipate and create the future.
To those who are doubtful as to whether high speed rail will ever go ahead I would urge you to look long and hard at this bill.
If we do not act now, we are closing off options for future generations.
It is another way we can look at the precautionary principle.
I support this legislation. It is consistent with the reports and the independent advisory council recommendations. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:12): I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
WestConnex Project in Sydney
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (10:13): I move:
That this House notes that:
(1) the Government is delivering on its promise to build a stronger Australia with its $1.5 billion commitment to the WestConnex project in Sydney;
(2) WestConnex is part of a long term vision for Sydney's future and is needed to cater for the additional 1.3 million people calling it home over the next 20 years;
(3) the 33 kilometre motorway linking Sydney's west and south-west with the CBD, Sydney Airport and Port Botany, will return some $20 billion to the NSW economy; and
(4) the project will create thousands of jobs including new apprenticeships.
As I made my way around the electorate of Reid over the past 18 months, I met many people and had many conversations. There were not many conversations that at some stage did not turn to local traffic—both neighbourhood streets and, of course, Parramatta Road. In Reid you will find the end of the M4 Motorway. We are the proverbial 'end of the line'. The roads that once belonged to us and our families are now home to traffic 'rat running' in an attempt to avoid Parramatta Road. The electorate of Reid has lived with the lack of vision of state and federal governments for the last 40 years.
But this was not always the case. Our forebears always intended a motorway from Sydney's greater west to the city. That is why they had retained ownership of land that would allow future governments to build it when required. In what could only be described as an act of political short-sightedness, the Wran state government sold this corridor in 1977.
When it comes to infrastructure, not only the people of Reid but all in NSW have been let down for too long. Poor infrastructure investment decisions over the past decade have contributed to a $30 billion infrastructure backlog. This has led to the poor economic performance of New South Wales compared with the rest of Australia during that time. Currently, congestion costs the New South Wales economy an estimated $5.1 billion every year or nearly $1,100 for every resident of Sydney. By 2020, the cost of congestion is expected to rise to $8.8 billion, as Sydney's population grows and travel demand increases.
Western Sydney is home to Australia's third biggest economy, and with Sydney's population expected to grow by 1.3 million people over the next 20 years, it is only going to get bigger and be more important to Australia's economic success. It deserves first-class infrastructure. With the WestConnex, it will have it. The M4, which begins at Penrith and terminates in the electorate of Reid at North Strathfield, creates unreliable travel times through the inner west to the city and the airport. As drivers reach the end of the motorway, they either head up Concord Road and turn into Gipps Street, spreading traffic through the back streets of Concord West, Concord, Five Dock and Rodd Point. Or they head down Parramatta Road, turning off at Wentworth Road, Strathfield, then through Burwood and Croydon. Our once quiet back streets—home to our children—have now become home to a large number of vehicles attempting to avoid the nightmare that is Parramatta Road.
Parramatta Road is heavily congested, with traffic speeds reduced on average to 21 kilometres per hour as trucks, vans, cars and buses fight for space on a crowded corridor interrupted by 25 sets of traffic lights. Our community in Reid has effectively been cut in half, with local residents doing all they can to stay on their side of Parramatta Road and avoiding the battle that goes on there. As a result, large sections of Parramatta Road have become an eyesore characterised by failing retail businesses, heavily-congested, polluting traffic and an absence of pedestrians. In some places all that is missing are the tumbleweeds rolling down the street.
The WestConnex is what the people of Reid are crying out for. WestConnex is the largest integrated transport and urban revitalisation project in Australia, linking Sydney's west and south-west with the CBD, the airport and port in a continuous 33-kilometre motorway that is completely free of traffic lights. WestConnex will be the trigger for urban revitalisation along the Parramatta Road corridor. Streetscapes will be beautified; green corridors and parkland added; it will be a better place to live, work and socialise.
According to experts, the WestConnex will cut forecast travel times between Parramatta and Sydney Airport by up to 40 minutes. I think this is conservative, because I, as a lifelong resident, can, like all in Reid, tell you horror stories of taking 20 minutes to travel a distance that should take two minutes. And with clearway restrictions eased on weekends, we now have the crazy situation where weekend traffic is worse than weekdays. Travel speeds have fallen to as little as 21 kilometres per hour for morning and afternoon peak periods and the M4 is congested 13 hours a day. Secondly, bus travel times between the inner west and the CBD will be halved; again , I believe, this is very conservative estimate. Thirdly, it will create 10,000 jobs during the construction phase, including hundreds of apprenticeships. With unemployment in double digits in Reid, especially amongst our youth, we could sure use these. Fourthly, it will bypass up to 52 sets of traffic lights.
Fifthly, it will remove 3,000 trucks a day from Parramatta Road and put them underground, leading to revitalised neighbourhoods on the surface. This is an important point, Madame Speaker: whilst there is concern about the impact the WestConnex tunnel ventilation will have on local air quality, I was amazed to attend a briefing only a few weeks ago at which an expert explained there would be a vast improvement in air quality, as trucks in particular would be driving through the tunnel at a continually higher average speed—not stopping and starting, using low gears, and spewing black smoke into the air.
Sixthly, north-south travel times across Parramatta Road for cars and public buses accessing the western rail line at Burwood and other stations will improve. This relates to the point about allowing the two halves of Reid to come back together—a situation we do not currently enjoy. Seventhly, it will provide the environment for 25,000 new jobs and 25,000 residences to be created over the next 20 years along Parramatta Road. In consultation with councils and communities, sections of the Parramatta Road corridor will be rezoned to encourage construction of new apartments and homes, commercial and retail space, recreational space, civic and government buildings. All this will result in a 20-kilometre urban revitalisation corridor developed progressively between Camperdown and Parramatta over the next 20 years. All told it is projected the WestConnex will deliver more than $20 billion in economic benefits to New South Wales, and, hopefully, we will get rid of those tumbleweeds.
This project will mean different things to different electorates at different stages of the construction. Whilst we have a responsibility to represent our electorate, we must also balance the short and the long term and govern for majorities, not minorities. One of the most common criticisms of politicians is that they have a lack of vision, that they govern by electoral cycle and find short-term issues to create political advantage, and that they seek to hold power above all else. WestConnex is the perfect example of a government not doing that.
I note with interest that I will be followed by the members for Kingsford Smith, Chifley and Parramatta. They may talk about tolls, compulsory acquisitions, moving bottlenecks, ventilation shafts, the role of public transport and a number of other things. These are issues they can play politics on. I challenge them to think about Sydney, particularly Western Sydney, when this project is finished in 10 or 20 years time and we will have an additional 1.3 million people calling our city home. With any major infrastructure project there will always be points of contention. But we must govern with long-term vision and for the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.
I applaud Prime Minister Mr Tony Abbott and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss for taking a long-term view and working with Premier Barry O'Farrell and the New South Wales government to deliver WestConnex for the people of Reid, the people of Western Sydney and the people of New South Wales. Prime Minister Abbott went to the electorate promising us the roads of the 21st century. His first order of business the day after he was sworn in was to deliver on the promise. On behalf of the people of Reid I thank him and I commend this motion to the House.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (10:21): It is with great pleasure that I second the motion by the member for Reid. I know this is a motion that is also close to your heart, Madam Speaker, as you have contributed much to the people of Western Sydney throughout your entire political career. WestConnex is the largest road transport project in Australia. It will provide a new way of travelling across Sydney, ensuring quick trips for commuters to the airport and Port Botany from Western Sydney. I would like to connect myself with the statements made by the honourable member for Reid and reiterate his sentiments about the disruption to his community in Strathfield, Cabarita and Canada Bay, the congestion that makes life for his community challenging every day—particularly on weekends—when getting kids to and from sport and school. I also look forward to the beautification projects for Parramatta Road, which has become an eyesore. It is about time we beautified this region and took pride in our inner west. I also reiterate my disappointment in those opposite who are determined to politicise these issues with narrow-minded small points.
Building WestConnex is proof that federal and state governments can work together and deliver better infrastructure to the people of Sydney. The Abbott government's investment in the WestConnex project is proof that we are getting serious about getting on with the job of delivering the roads of the 21st century. For too long, successive governments have shirked the responsibility of providing vital infrastructure to the people of Western Sydney. We all remember that it was the former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr who stated 'Sydney is full'. Such statements are most unhelpful to the people of my region. As an outer metropolitan electorate in the Sydney basin, we often find ourselves at the back of the queue of overcrowded infrastructure. When travelling to the city we must fight the bottlenecks of Strathfield, Concord, Homebush, Parramatta and Blacktown and then in our own region of the greater Nepean Valley. This knock-on effect of not investing in infrastructure right through Western Sydney causes great frustration to the people living in my electorate and travelling from it. I believe WestConnex is a vital brick in the road to decongesting these bottlenecks.
Every day, two-thirds of the Lindsay workforce must leave the region for employment opportunities. Our region is one of the fastest growing in Australia, and it is projected that over the next 20 years an additional half-million people will make Western Sydney their home. In essence, for the people of my region, that is akin to constructing a Canberra to the north and a Canberra to the south of Penrith. My region of Western Sydney must ready itself not only for the challenges of providing existing infrastructure to meet the demands of the current population but also for the needs of future generations. I look forward to working with the infrastructure Prime Minister not only in the master-planning process that is essential to providing the vital roads and rail demanded by the people of Western Sydney but also on providing an infrastructure pipeline crucial in meeting the future needs in connecting our regions.
I acknowledge the legacy of Prime Minister John Howard and his achievement of delivering the M7 under budget and ahead of schedule. As the M7 has already demonstrated, key roads in Western Sydney are an essential catalyst for future investment and are sure to create more local jobs. We need only look at Norwest, Erskine business park, and Dunheved Business Park and we will see the opportunities that have been created in those regions. Look also at what is happening at the Light Horse Interchange. These are exciting for the people of Western Sydney. It is about time we brought jobs to where the people live.
WestConnex will allow our local residents to bypass 52 sets of traffic lights and save 40 minutes on their trip to the city. It will, finally, connect the M5 and M4 corridors. WestConnex will enable the people of Lindsay to spend more time with their families and less time on the road. It will save businesses time and money, allowing deliveries to be received and sent more efficiently. It will give heavy vehicles real choices about how to travel across Sydney without clogging up local roads and needing to stop at countless traffic lights. Currently, we see a massive backlog in freight, with links to the airport and the port not able to cope with demand. More than half—13 hours—of any 24-hour period sees the M4 strangled, with more than 170,000 trucks and cars. This costs the state and national economies billions of dollars. Estimates put the cost to Sydney of this congestion as high as $8.8 billion by 2020. Therefore, I am pleased to note that WestConnex will return some $20 billion to the New South Wales economy. Not only will WestConnex deliver that economic benefit to New South Wales but it will help create 10,000 jobs during construction, including hundreds of apprenticeships.
The O'Farrell government breaks WestConnex into three stages. Stage 1 is the concept design from Parramatta to Homebush. The O'Farrell government has already commenced holding public information sessions along this corridor. In many cases these have been held by my very good friend the member for Penrith, the Hon. Stuart Ayres MP—it is great to be able to call him 'the honourable'. I congratulate him on his ascension into the New South Wales ministry. Stage 1 also involves widening the M4 into four lanes in each direction between Church Street, Parramatta, and Homebush Bay Drive, then further extending the M4 via a tunnel along Parramatta Road through to the City West Link at Haberfield. I am sure that that is the part that the member for Reid is very anxious to see. Clearing this bottleneck allows us in the outer suburbs of Western Sydney a huge opportunity, because it is this bottleneck that sees traffic banked back as far as St Marys every single peak hour. Work is due to commence on this in 2015.
Stage 2 focuses on the M5 east corridor, widening the M5 to four lanes in each direction between King Georges Road and Bexley Road.
Mr Coleman: Hear, hear!
Ms SCOTT: It is nice to see that the member for Banks is very excited about that. Further, there will be a six-kilometre tunnel to join this section of motorway to the St Peters area, as well as a surface link to Sydney Airport. Stage 3 will see an 8.5-metre tunnel linking stages 1 and 2 via the Camperdown area with three lanes in each direction. Together, the New South Wales and Australian governments are contributing $3.3 billion to WestConnex with the whole 33-kilometre corridor to cost around $11 billion. In addition to the motorway, urban revitalisation will take place along the Parramatta Road corridor. WestConnex will take around 3,000 trucks a day off Parramatta Road—and that will be great for Strathfield families—and put them into a tunnel allowing for around 25,000 new homes and 25,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. We are removing the burden that has been placed on Australian businesses.
I am pleased to second the motion of the member for Reid and am proud to be part of a government that will continue providing real solutions to the people of Western Sydney. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:30): I speak in opposition to this motion. Labor is not opposed to the WestConnex project but we are opposed to short-term planning and political fixes, which this project and this motion appear to be. Deputy Speaker, if you drove to Sydney Airport this morning, the one thing that you could guarantee after 5.30 am is a traffic jam. On every business day, after 5.30 am in my electorate, at Kingsford Smith Airport you are guaranteed a traffic jam. Less than a kilometre away from our nation's largest and busiest airport is our nation's largest and busiest port, Port Botany. The port is currently being expanded to cater for additional shipping that will see more and more trucks on the roads around Sydney Airport and the streets of Kingsford Smith. At the moment, around Mascot train station there are 10- to 15-storey residential apartments being built, which will see additional residents move into the airport precinct and, of course, additional cars on our roads. This is putting massive pressure on the roads in my electorate of Kingsford Smith.
As I said, Labor is not opposed to the WestConnex project, but we are opposed to elements of it in its current form. In its current form, WestConnex will simply make the situation worse around pinch points in the Sydney traffic network—in particular, around Sydney Airport and Port Botany. The current proposal for WestConnex proposes exits at Canal road, at Qantas Drive and at General Holmes Drive. That will see thousands of additional vehicles come onto the roads around Sydney Airport. The people who use WestConnex from the western suburbs to come to the airport will end up on ordinary two-lane roads around the airport and the port. There is no plan as part of the WestConnex project to upgrade those important roads that feed on to the WestConnex around Sydney Airport and the port. Importantly—and the great shame about this proposal and this motion—there is no link from the WestConnex to Port Botany. There is no link at all from Foreshore Road, which goes directly onto Port Botany—the existing port and the new one—and the WestConnex project. It is one of the biggest and most important road infrastructure and planning projects in the state's history, and yet there is no link at all to the port which carries the freight that travels west on our roads. It is our nation's largest port and there is no link between WestConnex and the port, which is literally 800 metres away. It is not as if it would take a massive expansion of WestConnex to link it into the port. It is a great symbol of poor planning. And that is why we have a problem with this motion that is before the House today. Element (3) of the motion states:
(3) the 33 kilometre motorway linking Sydney's west and south-west with the CBD, Sydney Airport and Port Botany, will return some $20 billion to the NSW economy …
It does not link to Port Botany. That is the problem with the motion. The 33-kilometre motorway does not link to Port Botany. It does not link to our nation's biggest port, which sees the largest amount of freight on our roads in Sydney. In that respect, this motion is deceptive, and it is pure politics over substance.
That will see additional freight and traffic from our port. Additional traffic from the WestConnex at the airport will be deposited on the roads around Kingsford Smith; in particular, General Holmes Drive, which is the major thoroughfare that takes people from the shire—from Cronulla, Sylvania and those places—into the city, into the CBD. It is the major road, and it is getting busier and busier. Now we are going to deposit all that additional traffic from the WestConnex and the port and the airport, with no link to this road project. That is the concern that Labor has with this project and this motion.
And it is not simply Labor that is opposed to this and has these concerns. Indeed, the Australian Logistics Council, the body responsible as the voice of the transport industry in this country, has similar concerns. Michael Kilgariff, the managing director of the ALC, called for the economic benefits of the WestConnex to be maximised because, in his view, in the current proposal they are not being maximised. He said:
I appreciate that there are some significant logistical issues having the motorway run via the Port, not to mention the cost … but ideally, the ALC would have liked to have seen the motorway run further into the port area.
There you have it. That is the view of the Australian Logistics Council—those that are involved on a day-to-day basis in transport.
I said at the beginning that Labor is not opposed to the WestConnex project—indeed, Labor allocated $1.8 billion towards WestConnex in the 2013-14 budget. But we made that on certain conditions, and those conditions are that the final proposal must provide direct links to get people to the city and the freight to the port. That is an important element of any proposal. Secondly, there should be no new tolls on old roads. This proposal will toll people from the western suburbs of Sydney for using existing roads, most notably the M4. And there needs to be a finalisation of a detailed business case for assessment by Infrastructure Australia, something that is sadly lacking in this proposal and this motion that comes before the parliament.
There is nothing in this project about integration. The current proposal does not integrate with the port. That is a far cry from Labor's approach to important projects such as this when we were in government. That approach is in evidence in Labor's investment in roads and urban transport projects throughout the country. Labor doubled the road budget during our period in office. We increased it to $46.5 billion. We upgraded 7½ thousand kilometres of roads throughout the country.
The Abbott government's approach is a refusal to accept integration, a refusal to back urban transport projects, and that is the great shame about this proposal and this investment. Labor, particularly in New South Wales in terms of federal infrastructure spending, more than doubled the amount that has been invested in infrastructure projects in Australia—the largest amount in our nation's history. In financial year 2013-14, Labor injected $1.7 billion into infrastructure projects in New South Wales.
Let us look at Labor's record in government on infrastructure in New South Wales. We committed $5.5 billion to road and rail transport projects servicing Sydney over six years. They include $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade; $800 million for the Moorebank intermodal terminal, an important project that will take some of that freight off the roads around my electorate and put it on rail out to Moorebank intermodal from the port, to be transported via truck; $980 million for the southern Sydney freight line; $405 million for the F3 to M2 missing link; $300 million to upgrade the Greater Western Highway; $172 million for Port Botany rail improvements; $98 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown; $75 million for the upgrade of Port Botany rail line; $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade program; and $1.8 billion to deliver the M4 and M5 extensions, in partnership with the New South Wales government.
That is the way that you invest in transport infrastructure, with integrated proposals, and that is why this motion must be opposed.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:40): I stand to oppose the motion. Like my colleague from Kingsford Smith, I support the development of infrastructure in Western Sydney, but it has to be the right infrastructure. When I see motions like this before the House, I wonder how many ways the current government can be a different government from the one they said they would be in the election campaign. They said they were a government with a plan and, if this is an example of their planning capacity, it is not a very good one. They said they would be an infrastructure government and, again, if this is an example of the quality of the infrastructure planning that we will see from the government, we are not looking forward to a particularly good decade ahead as the plans they put in place in this early stage come to fruition.
The WestConnex project is a nice announcement. We in the Parramatta area and further west know that we have a fabulous piece of infrastructure in the M4, but, like many of the pieces of infrastructure in our area, it is not complete. I have said quite often in my community that one of the things we would like to see in Parramatta is a piece of our infrastructure actually finished. If you look around you can see the Parramatta to Chatswood rail line, which stops at Epping, and the current state government and this federal government are withdrawing the funding from that, so that will not be finished. It just needs to be finished—you can almost see Epping railway station from Carlingford. The line to Richmond has been doubled to Schofields but then goes single, again putting extra cars on the road through Parramatta. The M4 stops at Strathfield, and this project moves that problem elsewhere but does not solve it. You cannot get from Parramatta to Bankstown or Blacktown across Western Sydney with any great ease. Of course, the M5 needs to be widened, the M3 needs to be finished and the freight corridors, which were funded and in large part completed by the Labor government, still need to be completed. So, when you look around the area of Parramatta, you can see lots and lots of infrastructure projects that were started at some point but were never actually finished. Strangely enough, as the second CBD, Parramatta seems to be ignored in most of those infrastructure projects, as with this one.
There are three ways you can get traffic off the road—three ways you can deal with traffic congestion. You can build public transport to get the cars off the road in the first place. Again, we have seen the current state government and this federal government walk away from that in a major way in the Parramatta to Epping rail line. That project, by the way, if it had started on time would have been finished in early 2015—it would have been finished before this project even begins, and they walked away from that.
You can look at finding ways to use both sides of a road. When the member for Lindsay talked about the M4 being chockers in the morning, she is right—going into the city it is chockers, but going out of the city we have an extraordinary piece of infrastructure that can move people but is essentially empty. Using both sides of a road requires that you plan your infrastructure to move people in two directions, and I will get to some of the flaws in the design of WestConnex as it relates to Parramatta as a major CBD in a minute.
But if you are going to build a piece of infrastructure as expensive as WestConnex, as expensive as all of our major freeways, any sensible planning requires that you find ways for people to use those freeways in both directions in both the morning and the afternoon. This is about moving people from the west to the city in the morning and from the city to the west in the afternoon, and not about two-way travel at all. The third way you can do it, which is probably the most expensive way, is just to accept that there will be cars on the roads and build bigger and bigger, and fatter and fatter, roads to move them around. WesConnex attempts to do that, but it does it in a way that only moves the congestion and the bottlenecks from one place to another.
I want to get into the detail of that. Stage 1, which you heard about from the member for Lindsay, deals with the section of road from Church Street to Haberfield, the section of road from Parramatta to the beginning of the City West Link. It is a really important stretch of road. At the moment, the M4 stops at Strathfield and you end up on Parramatta Road, which is a major choke point until you get to Wattle Street, a two-lane road that starts to move a little better. As you get closer to the city it too is essentially a car park. Stage 1 widens the M4 to Strathfield. It widens the bit of the M4 that we currently have to four lanes and puts a toll on it, and it finishes that in 2019. So, between now and 2019, we will see the widening of the M4 to four lanes. It will be three lanes until you get to Parramatta and then it will be four lanes from there until you hit Strathfield, where it will go into a tunnel and back to three lanes. So that is the first new choke point—four lanes to three lanes for the tunnel, and then as you come out of the tunnel at Haberfield you go to two lanes. So it fools you into thinking, as you enter the freeway just after Parramatta, that you are on a nice road into the city, but then as more traffic joins it you go to three lanes and then as more traffic again joins it you go to two lanes. I mean, it is almost backwards from what a decent plan would be, which would actually widen the road according to the amount of traffic that is entering it.
It also creates some interesting new choke points within Parramatta. We are very critical in Parramatta of the WestConnex design because it actually ignores Parramatta completely—the second CBD is ignored completely, except that there are a couple of extra ways to get out of Parramatta. You can get out of Parramatta, heading into the city, at Bridge Road, which is already an incredible choke point. It goes over a very narrow two-lane bridge across a railway station, a major choke point that people in the area are already critical of, and turns it into a bigger choke point. It also introduces a western lane out of Church Street. Again that is a good thing but Church Street also is a car park coming through Parramatta—the only way to get there is to go through the Parramatta CBD if you want to get onto the M4 at that one—and it turns what is already a major choke point into an even bigger one.
It is also worth looking at the time frames for this. By 2019 we will have a nice wide M4 that funnels down into three lanes just as more traffic joins it after Strathfield and then down to two lanes as you approach the city. One would have to question how that is going to cause traffic to flow in a better way. It bypasses the second CBD altogether. It does not provide extra access points into Parramatta. It does not provide any encouragement for traffic to flow the other way, only from the west into the city. Again, it is an extraordinary waste of half a resource for half a day. I doubt that a business would make a decision to build such an expensive piece of infrastructure and only use half of it at any given time, when both sides are available.
Stage 2, which will be completed by 2020, deals with the M5 motorway from St Peters to the airport. Again, it is incredibly important that the M5 motorway be widened. It was on the Labor government's plans and it is quite appropriate that it be widened; it is, in fact, too narrow. But the bit between those two, from Haberfield to St Peters, will not be complete for another 10 years. So it will be 10 years before people in the west will be able to use the motorway from Parramatta, through the four lanes and the three lanes, and then through the tunnel heading around to the M5 and back to the airport. It is at least a 10-year wait for that.
Between now and then, we have what can only be described as a project which will encourage more cars onto a road before funnelling them down into narrower bits. It is a plan which ignores the second CBD. It ignores it completely. It is a plan which worsens the choke points that are already in that CBD. It essentially, in a very short period of time, will leave us with the same sort of car park morning traffic and afternoon traffic flows that we have now. It is hard to imagine this WestConnex, given the way it is designed and the way it funnels into narrower and narrower roads as it approaches the city, will do anything other than encourage more cars into the car park which is currently the M4. Without encouraging traffic to flow the other way, without finding a way to get cars off the road through a better public transport system, without investing in infrastructure which gets cars off the road, this is just going to make the situation worse.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (10:51): It is not really the politics of hope, is it, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the member for Parramatta? It is not, 'Yes, we can'; it is, 'No, we can't.' You can understand why the last Labor governments federally and in New South Wales were so atrocious on delivering infrastructure projects for metropolitan Sydney. In my electorate we were promised up to five times over a decade that the north-west rail line would be constructed. Signs went up saying, 'Coming soon: the north-west rail line.' But over 12 years those five promises were broken. It was never started. It took the election of a Liberal state government to actually start construction of a major public transport infrastructure project in Australia. The north-west rail line is a major public transport infrastructure upgrade. Over 12 years Labor did nothing in Sydney.
We also saw under the last federal government six years where not a single dollar of infrastructure money was spent in metropolitan Sydney. Nothing was done. Of course, $100,000 was put into the New South Wales state government for a study. There was $100,000 for a study on a metro line. But when the metro line was cancelled by that state government, the Commonwealth had a windfall. The money was paid back. So the only money that was allocated by the federal government for a study had to be paid back by the state government to the Commonwealth. That is the embarrassing record of Labor in office with infrastructure in the biggest city in our country. It is the biggest driver of economic activity in our country, and there were no infrastructure projects underway under Labor.
This is an excellent motion from the member for Reid, highlighting the fact that from day one the Tony Abbott government, a Liberal government, will be very different on the delivery of infrastructure in Australia. This is not about being road technicians. I question the qualifications of the member for Parramatta to tell us about her design input into the lanes or the gradients of the tunnels. I really question her input. I know we have frustrated car executives on that side who want to run car companies. They want to run airlines. They also now want to tell us about the gradients of tunnels and about lanes. Is it only me who finds this extraordinary?
We are putting in funding from the Commonwealth—actual dollars. That is what we do at a Commonwealth level. We provide the funding. The best piece of infrastructure built by a Commonwealth government in recent memory was the M7, funded by the Commonwealth under the Howard government in partnership with the state government. It is an excellent motorway. I never get a single complaint about it. People do not mind paying the toll, member for Parramatta, because they get a great service from that toll. It is unrealistic in a modern construct to expect infrastructure to be built by government without some form of user-pays charge. It is unrealistic. It is unprofessional for members of parliament to come into this House and say, 'It is possible.' Simply put, the infrastructure backlog that exists in all of our major cities around Australia is so substantial that it is unrealistic and blatantly politically flawed to come in here and suggest that there can be no user-pays input into major infrastructure projects. There needs to be, there must be and there should be. That is the reasonable way to construct the financing of this project.
We know that with the state government there will be a reasonable toll put on this motorway. It needs to happen so we can get Sydney moving again. Given everything we know about infrastructure financing in Australia, it is fantastic that we are keeping our commitment to go through with such an important project in a major city to get Sydney moving again.
Just on the weekend, you could pick up reports which showed that our city has ground to a halt. The papers are asking, 'Why does one truck hitting a tunnel stop the whole city?' The answer is, because we have relied solely on government to fund motorways and other infrastructure projects in Sydney. Design has been missing.
Coming to office as a new government with a new start, we are starting on the front foot. We are building the most important project—that is, connecting Sydney with the west, the biggest economic driver in our city: Western Sydney and its millions of people, millions of businesses, and all of the economic drivers that will make our city prosperous. We have to get it moving with a major infrastructure project. We know this will create 10,000 jobs. Of course we can get this right. We do not have to have a debate in here about the technical grading of the tunnelling, or how many lanes it needs to be; that is the opposition looking for a cause. It is just simple negativity—relentless negativity. This is the most negative opposition I have ever seen! They are relentlessly negative about everything. But the reality is that the populations of the member for Chifley's electorate, and of the member for Kingsford Smith's electorate and of the member for Parramatta's electorate will be cheering the Abbott government on as this project is commenced and as road projects actually get underway—not studies, not money allocated in the last year of the government—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: And there are lots of claims over there; they say, 'on the final year of the forward estimates we put some money in'—well, we are actually putting the money in up front and getting the real construction underway. This is a fantastic motion by the member for Reid. I absolutely commend it to the House. And I say to those members opposite: please, the politics of hope—yes we can.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:56): The member for Reid gets breathless behind the vision of the way that those opposite are funding WestConnex. He just gets excited; he gets cheap thrills. I do not want to ask him to fill out a shopping list in case I give him a heart attack! I cannot get over the vision behind this $1.5 billion cash splash that underwrites WestConnex—it tells me that you are into cheap thrills that someone else is paying for. Because all those members opposite have their noses pressed up against the thought bubble that we will see the coalition infrastructure wish list put out on parade. It is nothing more than a sort of amateurish smudge of credibility on coalition talking points. It is not good enough. In opposition, the coalition wanted a cost-benefit analysis on a fridge opening. And now they write on the back of confetti, put up a cheer, and pat themselves on the back, and they think that is good enough—it ain't.
We set up Infrastructure Australia with a specific purpose: to de-politicise these issues. We wanted to ensure that the politics is taken out of these issues and that the independent experts are put in. Infrastructure projects from across the country are put in by state governments. We then backed those projects up with funding, after the experts had been through them—nearly $47 billion on roads nationally and $13.6 million on rail—and we saw results. I challenge the member for Mitchell when he says that in Sydney we saw no funding. We saw $5.5 billion on the road and rail transport service in Sydney over six years, including nearly $2 billion for the northern Sydney freight line and the southern Sydney freight line upgrades; $405 million for the F3 to M2 missing link; and $93 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown that you and I no doubt drive down to get here. We also have the $300 million to upgrade the Great Western Highway and $300 million for Port Botany rail improvements and associated upgrades. Depoliticised, independent, evidence-based, fully-funded quantified results—that is methodical. It is the kind of infrastructure planning process that those opposite dream about. The contrast is embarrassing, because we have heard from the member for Reid—the chief cheerleader proposing this motion—a terrible proposition being put forward about the financing of WestConnex.
As a Western Sydney MP, I never want to take a backward step in representing people in my area. Yes, people in our area spend way too much time in traffic. Yes, they do want to see better funding for public transport infrastructure. But they should get properly funded, well-designed roads that they should not have to pay for twice. They are paying for this M4 upgrade twice with the retolling of the M4. In government, we set aside $1.8 billion in the 2013-14 budget for WestConnex on three simple conditions: first, that the proposal had to provide direct links to get people to the city and freight to the port; second, no new tolls on old roads; and third, finalisation of a detailed business case for assessment by Infrastructure Australia. And what did Mr Abbott do? He blasted out $1.5 billion at the end of an election promise megaphone, smack into the coffers of the New South Wales government, but then flicked the bill to Western Sydney motorists. The cheer squad here for retolling the M4 is made up of the member for Reid, the member for Banks, the member for Mitchell and the member for Lindsay—all of those members should tell their constituents that they support retolling the M4, and that they support paying for old roads out of their constituents' pockets. Every single one of you should be doing it. The average toll, member for Reid, on the initial Parramatta-to-Homebush M4 widening is about $3 in current dollars, but it will be higher when the stage opens in 2017, at the earliest.
There are serious shortcomings. Jacob Saulwick of the Sydney Morning Herald gave the example that those opposite have set up the WestConnex Delivery Authority. He asked: 'What are these people doing?' In his article of 2 November he pointed out:
None of them seem to be raising what is quite a large elephant in the room: that WestConnex is the biggest urban infrastructure project in the country—with $3.3 billion of taxpayers' money already committed to it—and hardly anything is known about it.
Taxpayers do not know how many cars are expected to use this motorway. They do not know its estimated impact on local roads. They are yet to be told its precise route. They're in the dark on construction methods.
When they did get around to advising people, they told people, on the day of the announcement, that their homes would be resumed. The article continued:
Even the need for the WestConnex is not known. It is certainly true Sydney's roads are inadequate. But this does not mean that the precise model of WestConnex is the solution.
When you look at it, this matter has a lot of questions that need to be answered. But the worst thing is that they are re-tolling the M4.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:01): I am thrilled to speak on this tremendous motion moved by my friend the member for Reid and seconded so eloquently by the member for Lindsay. This is a terrific motion for a terrific project. This is the first time I have spoken in this House on a contested motion. I am wondering if this is, effectively, what normally happens in the sense that the government puts forward a constructive motion, a project that is clearly in the interests of the people of my electorate and of Sydney more generally, and then the opposition comes along and says that it is a bad idea. I can tell you that for the people of the electorate of Banks this is a very good idea and a very, very important project.
The reality of Sydney roads is that Labor's legacy, in both the state government and in its failure to contribute at a federal level, is one of congestion—and everyone in Sydney knows that to be the case. It seems to me that, on the one hand, Labor proposes job-killing taxes and, on the other hand, we on this side propose job-creating infrastructure. I certainly know which side I would rather be on.
For my electorate WestConnex is particularly important because of the duplication of the M5 East tunnel. Anyone who has driven from Beverly Hills in my electorate—or from Hurstville, or from Mortdale or from any of the suburbs that access the M5 for the drive into the city—know how bad the M5 East tunnel can be. There are frequent delays and lots of congestion to the point where some people have abandoned using the road altogether. It is only two lanes at present, which is inadequate. One of the great outcomes of this project is that the M5 East tunnel will be increased to four lanes in each direction. That is going to provide much-needed relief for the people of Banks.
The trip from King Georges Road at Beverly Hills into the CBD is now estimated to take about 55 minutes in peak hour. A very substantial reduction of around 25 minutes on the journey is expected with the completion of this project. Imagine what that saving means in time. It means that people can get to their business meetings on time. It means that they can get more done during the working week. It also means that families can spend more time together. People who drive home from work in the city, and who are confronted by huge traffic delays on the M5 East, are going to get home to their families more quickly with the building of the WestConnex. That is obviously a good thing not just for the economy but also for family life in general. It is certainly a tremendous development for my area.
It is also important to think about some of the roads where congestion will be eased. There is a lot of congestion at the moment on roads like the River Road, Fairford Road, Belmore Road North and, of course, King Georges Road, which can be a real bottleneck in my electorate of Banks. At the moment, when you merge onto the M5 at Beverly Hills, you have to merge into the existing traffic. One of the important developments in the WestConnex project is that there will now be a dedicated lane for that merging at Beverly Hills so that traffic will not have to merge into the existing traffic. The member for Reid and others would understand how tremendous not having to face that merge will be for my electorate.
The contrast is very, very clear. Premier Nathan Rees was one of a number of premiers in New South Wales over a relatively short period of time. Back in 2009 he and his transport minister put in place plans for the M5 East duplication which were removed three months later. The M4 East was first promised by Bob Carr back in 2002, which I think is 11 years ago, and it did not happen. The government is committed, through its contribution to the WestConnex, to improving infrastructure in the city, and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (11:06): I understand that this is the first time the member for Reid has brought a motion before the House. That is understandable, as he is a new member, and I congratulate him for his courage. But I think we are going to have to chalk this one down to a beginner's error, because it is a very, very rare member of parliament on either side of the House who will bring a motion before the House which does nothing but put the spotlight on a fundamental error—a big problem, a broken promise, a policy backflip—by their own leader. Let us have a think about what we have witnessed over the last couple of years.
It is little surprise that the member for Wentworth is not in here to speak on this motion, because he has entertained us, up hill and down dale, for the last three years on the importance of cost-benefit analysis when putting in place important infrastructure projects. Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you sat in the last parliament and you would have witnessed some often very entertaining contributions from the member for Wentworth on the importance of cost-benefit analysis. We have set up a body whose single job is to ensure that large infrastructure projects in this country are subject to a cost-benefit analysis, and that body is known as Infrastructure Australia.
I would not have been surprised if the member for Sturt came in here and spoke on this motion, because he can speak on anything on any given day of the week, even if his contributions contradict what he said the day before. He has that capacity, but many others on the other side do not. Let me remind the member for Reid what his leader said prior to the federal election. When talking about large infrastructure projects, he said that in government they would require all Commonwealth infrastructure expenditure exceeding $100 million to be subject to analysis by Infrastructure Australia to test cost-effectiveness and financial viability, yet here we have the member for Reid celebrating the fact that they are bringing this project on without a cost-benefit analysis, without it coming within cooee of Infrastructure Australia and with serious flaws—as the member for Chifley and the member for Kingsford Smith have pointed out.
On this side of the House we are not opposed to building roads. We put record amounts of funding into roads and into urban transport infrastructure in New South Wales, right around Australia and in Sydney itself—$5.5 billion over the last four years, and that amount is 15 times greater than that spent by the previous, Howard government on Sydney transport infrastructure. We were willing to fund the WestConnex project, and $1.8 billion was put towards it in the 2013-14 budget; but it was subject to conditions. The first was that it would be toll-free—as the member for Chifley, the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Parramatta have pointed out—and that there would be no new tolls on old roads, because that amounts to just a new tax on old infrastructure for motorists.
So the member for Reid is celebrating, and others have spoken in favour of his motion: a new tax on old roads for motorists. That is not the only problem with it. The second problem is that, because it has not been properly planned, we are shifting transport bottlenecks from one part of Sydney to another. As a result of this project—because all the planning has not been put in place and because it is not properly integrated with road, port and rail—we are going to see a shift of bottlenecks and Sydney is going to become a car park. That is what this project was going to amount to because it is not being properly planned.
There are two ways to do transport infrastructure: you can do it on the back of a beer coaster, as those opposite are celebrating, or you can put in place the proper planning process, which was established by the former government through Infrastructure Australia, and ensure that it is all done properly. Infrastructure Australia has looked at this. It did not punt it; it said that it is definitely a project that needs to be considered and that further planning is needed. It suggested that it was at the early stage of conception. If this were integrated with rail, those on this side of the House would find it a lot easier to support this motion.
Debate adjourned.
Health Workforce Australia
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:11): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the importance of having a well-trained medical workforce including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals for the sustainability of our health system;
(2) acknowledges the work of Health Workforce Australia in increasing the percentage of clinical training days for students, with the most recently released figures demonstrating a 50 per cent increase in 2012 compared to 2010;
(3) recognises that this increase in clinical training has been in part the result of the support provided to universities and health clinics through the Clinical Training Funding program;
(4) notes with concern the evidence provided in Senate Estimates on the 20 November 2013 by the Assistant Minister for Health that unallocated funds to support clinical training are currently frozen; and
(5) calls on the Government to immediately make available the money within Health Workforce Australia that assists universities and health services to make clinical placements available so that students can have improved access to placements in the upcoming academic year.
There are significant challenges facing Australia's health workforce for the future. The demand being driven by growth in chronic disease, increased expectations from the community and an ageing population means that, now more than ever, it is important that governments plan to have a well trained medical workforce for the sustainability of our healthcare system.
I am moving this motion because I believe it is irresponsible of this government to freeze funding which is so vital in ensuring these objectives are met and to threaten organisations which play such a vital role in health workforce planning for the future. Thousands of student doctors, nurses and allied health workers currently face an uncertain future thanks to the Abbott government. Funding to support clinical placements—essential for these students to finish their training or expand their scope of practice—has been frozen thanks to the Abbott government's commission of cuts. Students cannot finish their training and start work as much needed health professionals without access to clinical placements in universities and healthcare facilities.
When questioned in Senate estimates, the Assistant Minister for Health, Fiona Nash, admitted that the Abbott government had frozen the funding of Health Workforce Australia, which helps support universities and health providers to make clinical placements available. Shame on this government for locking up funding for such a vital program to support universities and healthcare operators provide clinical placements. Unfortunately, the coalition has a history of ignoring the future needs of the health workforce. When the now Prime Minister was health minister in the Howard government, he had an atrocious record on health workforce planning. He put a cap on GP training places which caused shortages of GPs right across the country. The Howard government's legacy on the health workforce was not one to be proud of, and the issues went much wider than GP training places. Indeed, 74 per cent of Australia faced a medical workforce shortage when Labor took office in 2007. This affected 60 per cent of the population, including many constituents in my electorate of Kingston who struggled to find a local GP. Of course, it was not just limited to my local electorate; it was right across the country. There was no vision and no policy during the Howard era in which the now Prime Minister was the health minister. It seems that this is a pattern that will continue now that he is Prime Minister. What we will see as a result is that Australia will head backwards in workforce planning and we will not have enough medical, nursing and allied health graduates to ensure that our needs are met. Indeed, when Labor came to office we had to start fixing up the mess that the previous health minister, the now Prime Minister, left.
Labor understood that there needed to be proper workplace planning when we came to government in 2007. We understood that there were wide-reaching problems going forward about supply of a well trained and well distributed health workforce. The member for Grey is here. I am sure he would understand the importance of a well distributed workforce to ensure that regional and remote areas are properly serviced.
Labor funded a $1.1 billion National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform which included: more funding for undergraduate clinical training; an increase of postgraduate training places; and a huge capital investment into teaching and training infrastructure to expand teaching and training, especially at major regional hospitals to improve clinical training in rural Australia. We established a national health workforce agency, Health Workforce Australia, to drive a long-term vision and plan for our health workforce.
Health Workforce Australia is an important organisation. It was established through COAG to ensure the government had an agency that was committed to building capacity, boosting productivity and improving the distribution of our health workforce. The agency works in collaboration with a number of key stakeholders and has direct links with states and territories, which are the biggest employers in our health system. Importantly, it has links on the boards of universities that train our medical workforce which focus on providing leadership, advice, research and funding to address the challenges of building a sustainable health workforce for our future.
Australia needs Health Workforce Australia. It has proven that it can respond and plan for our future health workforce needs. For example, when the former Labor government increased bowel screening, many Australians required an endoscopy; however, the capacity in the workforce for endoscopy nursing was not there. Health Workforce Australia responded through the Expanded Scopes of Practice program and made funding available to support nurses to extend their skills as well as respond to the growing demand for these services. This is an example of Health Workforce Australia responding flexibly and quickly to the needs of the community to ensure that important preventative measures occur.
Programs such as the Clinical Training Funding program delivered by Health Workforce Australia have had a significant impact. Indeed, the number of clinical placement days in 2012 increased by 50 per cent, compared to 2010. The funding contributed to a huge increase in placement days in rural and remote Australia, an area which so desperately needs more health professionals.
The Clinical Training Funding program was expanding the clinical training capacity of the health workforce in Australia and promoting the growth in clinical training placement days in 25 different health professions to address workforce shortages—a great example of how essential this funding was to supporting growth in training and addressing health workforce issues. But this funding to support clinical placements is now frozen thanks to this government's commission of cuts. If this is not unfrozen, it will lead to students not being able to access the clinical placements they need and to existing health professionals not having the facilities to expand their clinical skills. This threatens all the great work that has been done by Health Workforce Australia over the last few years to help build capacity in our training places and to improve productivity in our health workforce.
Students will now be facing uncertainty over whether or not there will be facilities and training services available so they can pursue a healthcare career of their choice. The money which this government is holding up through its commission of cuts is hurting the ability of government agencies to provide essential programs to support clinical placements to get the health workforce we need.
I have grave concerns that the government may even cut this money altogether and abolish Health Workforce Australia. We know it has already axed the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council and flagged abolishing the National Preventative Health Agency. Axing Health Workforce Australia will send us backwards to a time when the now Prime Minister was health minister and when there was no coordination, no planning and no vision for our health workforce needs into the future. I call on the minister and the Prime Minister to release these funds. The new academic year is fast approaching. Students will want to know whether or not they can get a clinical place. They will want to know if they can pursue the career of their dreams. Freezing this funding really is quite irresponsible, quite retrograde and will really have, I believe, an incredibly detrimental effect.
As our population ages we will need more, not fewer, doctors, nurses and allied health workers—and we will need to ensure that they are distributed around the country. If Health Workforce Australia is abolished, as we know the minister has mooted for some time, these funds will be lost. These important funds have had a demonstrable impact on our clinical training places. As I said, we had a 50 per cent increase in two years. This is critically important. If these funds are not released, it will prevent students from finishing their training. The Abbott government will be leaving these students and those health professionals who want to extend their experience in limbo and denying Australians much-needed, home-grown health workers. We know that often the government's answer is to use 457 visas to grow workforces, but people want to train home-grown people here who want to have a career in the medical workforce. I call on the government to immediately reinstate this funding so our students can finish their training and become the doctors, nurses and allied health workers we need for the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): I thank the member for Kingston. Is the motion seconded?
Ms Ryan: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Lalor. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (11:22): I thank the member for Kingston for her motion for, while it is certainly making some partisan political points, it does express at its heart a desire to address some of the critical medical staff shortages around the nation. It is very timely for me because it was only last week in this place that I raised the shortage of general practitioners in rural and regional areas. In fact, in my own town of Kimba and in the Elliston community on the state's far west coast, GP services are to be cut from full time to three days a week, and I will have a little more to say about this in a few moments.
Turning to the motion I can only concur with the member's concerns when she points out that we need to support a modern, proactive medical system with a sufficient and well-trained workforce. That is why, over the last 10 years, there has been such an increase in the number of medical undergraduate places.
It was said that, in the term of the previous government—and the member for Kingston once again gave this impression—the moves to address the doctor shortage, for instance, only came from her side of the parliament when in fact the figures I have here refute that. In fact, in 2003, there were 1,511 medical undergraduates in Australia; by 2006, there had been a 30 per cent increase to 2,071; and by the time of the change of government there were over 2½ thousand—a ramp-up of 1,000 or around 40 per cent. So the problem was well-recognised within the Howard government and addressed. In fact, since that time that number has grown by another 700: not as much as the initial increase; only about another 25 per cent. So both sides of politics have recognised the issue and done something about it. But it is like an oil tanker on the ocean: it takes some time to turn around.
I think it is something of an embarrassment to Australia that we have been reduced to poaching doctors and other medical professionals from all around the world to fill our shortfall. We should be very proud of our ability to train overseas students and, whether they then return to their country of origin or stay here, this world and Australia is a better place for it. But we should not have to actively entice fully trained doctors to come to fill a shortfall in Australia.
During the eighties and nineties I was a chairman of a local hospital board that has since been abolished by our state government in South Australia, a Labor administration, and we are far poorer for the event because it was part of the local board's job—their remit, if you like—to attract doctors into our communities. That chore has now become the responsibility of Country Health SA, and it is debatable how effective they are. After all, this government body is trying to attract people to live in communities that they do not live in themselves. It is far easier to be a champion of your local community than to try to tell somebody else how great it is when you do not live there yourself. However, in the eighties and nineties, there were plenty of doctors in Australia, and we had just a distribution problem—that is, there were too many in the city and not enough in the country. This in turn led to over-servicing and was at least part of the reason that the undergraduate intake numbers were cut.
Like an oil tanker, as I said, it takes time to turn around, and the tendency to overreach is not limited to the training of medical professionals. So by the time it became obvious we were going to run short of doctors, it took almost 10 years to fix the problem. But we will approach that point in the next few years.
The member's motion expresses concerns that funds to support clinical training are frozen. She should fear not, because the coalition is acutely aware of the need for training and placement. The reason we are so aware is that, collectively, we represent regional Australia, and it is regional Australia that is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to medical workforce shortages. It is our communities that suffer first, and so we have a great commitment to addressing the shortages. I assure the member that the funds have not been cut despite her party leaving the Australian people the worst set of government debt figures ever and leaving Australian industry on its knees and unable to compete internationally, suffering the burden of new taxes and market regulation that they on her side have personally been responsible for. She should have no fear because the coalition is committed to delivering the same funding deal for training as was the case under her government, and that is the deal that continues through to 31 December 2014.
All government expenditure is under review to identify waste and inefficiency. In fact, the government has established an audit commission to do exactly that across all arms of government. Considering the long list of underachievements and policy and delivery failures under the previous regime, we would be failing the Australian people if we did any less. However, the funding is earmarked and it will flow, and those questions are answered. Beyond that point—that is, December 2014—I point out to the member for Kingston that that is why we have a budget, and it will come soon enough.
I was speaking earlier about the rural doctor shortage and, as I said, we are once again heading for a time when we have sufficient numbers and, quite probably, a surplus in Australia, but we should be considering measures that will curtail this and—even more importantly—address the acute shortages around rural and regional Australia.
We all know the difficulties in finding GPs for country practice, and the problems and obstacles seem to be growing by the day. Backup, on-call, partner's opportunities, feminisation of the workforce, children's education, and training opportunities are just some of them. Perhaps a straight desire to live in the city close to elite sport, the arts and more dining options is another. I understand all that, and there is nothing wrong with people—doctors or anyone else—making those decisions about their lives.
However, there is much that is good about country practice, and many of my friends who are GPs and live and work in the country tell me they relish the hands-on responsibility for people's lives and the opportunity to practice their full range of skills and not take the accepted and peer-induced pressure to refer many of their clients to specialist services simply because they can.
The financial rewards for country service are well in front of city practice. Recently a rural based doctor in solo practice told me that he did not know why doctors were so reluctant to tell others what they earn in single-doctor practice. But in any case he was happy to share that he earned $300,000 to $320,000 a year after expenses but before tax. In that case it is difficult to see that money is the issue.
For mine, it is time we started to look at what we as taxpayers are receiving for the vast amount of money we invest in the health system. I was always taught that the customer is always right. Perhaps it is time to look at who the customer is and what it is they want. It could be argued that the customer is the patient, and certainly to some degree that is right. It is not hard to work out what the patient wants. They want a good local service, and that is amplified in country Australia. We want the service where and when we can access it. That goes for doctors, hospitals and the whole bit. We accept that not every service can operate everywhere, that communities need a certain minimum size for these services to exist. But where those pre-conditions exist and viable practices are on offer, we want them staffed.
Even further, though, it can be argued that the primary customer is the taxpayer as the funder of the service. The taxpayer pays for the service and it should be what we want, when and where we want it. Why would we as taxpayers, having largely paid for the training of the doctor, then allow the doctor to set up a business in an over-serviced area like North Adelaide? Why would we not, as the purchaser, insist the service be delivered in Kimba, or Elliston, or Hawker, or Coober Pedy or anywhere else where we require the service.
I believe it is time we seriously considered making Medicare provider numbers postcode specific. That is, if doctors wish to access Medicare subsidies, they will have to go to a location where a vacancy exists and not be able to set up anywhere they think looks a nice place to live, and then begin to compete for a finite market. Sure, there would be all kinds of issues surrounding practice assets. Obviously such issues would require extended transition periods, but it is worth remembering many of these traditional assets are not worth what they once were. Just try selling a small practice in a city area, with the advent of superclinics and 24-hour practices, and you will see what I mean. Almost certainly the medical profession will vigorously defend the current arrangements, but, after all, why would we give someone a subsidy to supply a service where they want to live and not where we want the service?
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:32): I too rise to speak on clinical training for our health professionals and the importance of the work being undertaken by Health Workforce Australia, and I thank the member for Kingston for the motion. As the representative of a growing community, I recognise the importance of ensuring the continued success of our health system, particularly in terms of our outer metropolitan and rural and regional communities—and I note that it is not just regional communities.
We face many challenges: an ageing population, an increased rate of heart disease, a rise in diabetes, mental health issues and addressing the concerns of those from migrant and Indigenous backgrounds. All of these issues affect my community and every community in Australia.
We need the workforce to be able to effectively address these issues. We need skilled and innovative doctors, nurses and allied health workers on the ground. We need a productive health system that enhances development and advancement. Also, we need to ensure we have health professionals in the areas and specialties where they are needed.
As you can see, providing adequate and comprehensive clinical training is truly about the health and wellbeing of our population and our nation. It is then imperative that we do all we can to proactively plan and assist health training capacity for our health professionals, now and into the future. In doing so, we can create a flexible, innovative and responsive health workforce that can meet the needs of all Australians. Government has a vital role to play in this.
Back in 2009 the National Health Workforce Taskforce identified that an additional ongoing intake of 12,000 students a year would be necessary to meet future health workforce requirements. Without this additional workforce we face a shortage of doctors, nurses and health professionals; an increasingly disparate and unequal health system; and a system where patients, based on nothing more than their postcode, are left behind.
That is why Health Workforce Australia is so important. As a Commonwealth authority, Health Workforce Australia delivers a nationwide and collaborative approach to our health workforce. Since its beginnings, Health Workforce Australia has been working cooperatively with governments and non-government organisations alike. By working with both the health and tertiary sector, they play an important role in planning and training Australia's health workforce.
An important part of this is ensuring greater training opportunities in the healthcare system. It was, for example, Health Workforce Australia that played an active role in increasing the depth of clinical training for our health students. Most recently, figures show a 50 per cent increase in the number of clinical training days in 2012, compared with 2010.
A huge component of this work is the Clinical Training Funding program, which provides funding to ensure there are enough training places to meet Australia's future health workforce needs. In total, the Clinical Training Funding program committed $432.2 million to public and private health services and universities. This assistance has meant the creation of 8,400 new clinical training places for students across 22 individual disciplines. Importantly, the program also actively promotes a balance in the distribution of clinical placements and students in our most underserviced areas. The Clinical Training Funding program is creating Australia's health professionals of the future, where and when we need them. It is key to our success.
Given the importance of this assistance, and the bipartisan support that another member spoke of, it is of great concern that the Assistant Minister for Health has suggested that unallocated funding to support critical clinical training has been frozen by the Abbott government. If they are acutely aware, we call on them to act. This is about the very future of our doctors and our nurses, the very future of our health system and the very future of our nation's wellbeing—and it is December 2013.
Surely the current Minister for Health can see this is too important an issue to play politics with, so I call on the coalition government to immediately make available funding to our universities and health services to ensure clinical placements continue to be available and that our students have greater access to placements now and into the future. It is about the health and wellbeing of every Australian.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:36): I am very pleased to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Kingston. I would like to note in the time available paragraph one of the motion, which notes the importance of having a well-trained medical workforce, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, for the sustainability of our health system. To that I say 'Hear, hear!' But I ask this question: what was the previous Labor government doing over the last six years? We know what they were doing. They cut self-education expenditures. These were part of wider education cuts of about $2.8 billion by the previous government. They capped the amount that someone could claim as a tax rebate for self-education expenditures at $2,000. This had its greatest impact on those earning less than $80,000, as they were the people who made the vast majority of claims for self-education expenditure. Most of that self-education expenditure came from the front line of our health services. We know that it affected doctors and nurses right throughout our health sector. Why did the Labor government do this when they knew it had such a damaging effect on the services that we provide?
Last week, I had the great pleasure of having a discussion with the Chairman of the Board of Paediatric Surgery, a constituent of the electorate of Hughes, a Dr Anthony Dilley. He emphasised how damaging the cuts that Labor made have been. He explained that in his field the average trainee would spend up to $20,000 a year on self-education. What Labor was going to do was penalise and punish these people to pay for Labor's reckless and wasteful spending. And here we have the member for Kingston coming into this chamber and noting the importance of having a well-trained medical workforce. And yet she was one of the members of parliament who before the election was pushing to put a cap of $2,000 on self-education expenditure.
The coalition can proudly say that we are not going ahead with this change. We are going to scrap that cap to ensure that people out there can undertake self-education and try to improve themselves by putting their own resources into training to make themselves better. We are removing that cap. The coalition should be congratulated for that.
The coalition is also going further than that. We are committed to expanding the medical workforce in this country and we are doing it through a variety of measures. Firstly, we are doubling incentives for general practice teaching. Secondly, we are investing in rural and regional teaching infrastructure. The coalition government is going to provide at least 175 grants of up to $300,000 each. Thirdly, the coalition is investing in nursing and the allied health workforce. The coalition will provide 500 additional scholarships for nursing and allied health. These will provide up to $30,000 per scholarship. Fourthly, the coalition will provide an additional $40 million over the next four years to support up to an additional 100 intern places in non-traditional settings in private hospitals. These are the positive steps that the coalition is taking to clean up the Labor government's mess.
There is one other point that I would like to quickly touch on in the debate on this motion, which calls on the government to make money available. Any member of parliament from the opposition who comes in here and talks about the money that the government should make available should firstly explain to the Australian public the mess that they left, the absolute mess that this coalition government has inherited. We face a situation such that very soon this nation is going to be $400 billion in debt. Our interest payments on that debt are over $800 million a month. That is $800 million that comes out of the economy to pay the interest. That is the legacy of the previous Labor government. That must be acknowledged by any speaker on the other side before they come into this parliament asking for expenditure.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (11:41): I thank the House for this opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on behalf of my constituents in Hotham. I was truly disappointed to learn during Senate estimates that the Abbott government is considering taking the Abbott axe to Health Workforce Australia, such an important organisation and one that deals with one of the most significant emerging challenges that we face in this country. We live in a great country, but we face some significant challenges. One challenge that we face is the provision of health care. COAG recognised some of the important issues and that recognition led to the establishment of Health Workforce Australia.
As Australia's population ages, our health needs are changing and growing. We know that in the 1970s only about six per cent of our population was aged over 65. In 2001, that had grown to 13 per cent. By 2060, the percentage of our population over the age of 65 is going to be about 25 per cent. As that occurs, one of the biggest implications will be the change in the nature of and demand for health services. That is what is facing our health workforce. We know that older people are going to need more doctors. But they are also going to need more allied health professionals, including people like physiotherapists and podiatrists, who help our older Australians have a good quality of life. At the same time as we are facing the challenge of an ageing population, we are seeing significant increases in demand due to chronic disease. We are also seeing community expectations about what our health workforce should be able to achieve increase.
You would think that after putting all this together—this explosion in demand for health care—this would be just the moment to invest in planning for an appropriate health workforce for the future. But instead this is the time that we seem to be facing cuts. This is going to be a particular problem for rural and regional Australia, because what we also know is that the ageing of our population is going to be particularly pronounced in the bush. Some regional areas around Australia have increasing numbers of retirees going there to enjoy the rural life in their later years. Also, lots of young adults will leave rural and regional areas and come to the city for education and work opportunities. We know also that there are already not enough doctors and allied health professionals in the bush. This will be a very significant and increasing problem in the future. This is just the moment to invest, especially in rural Australia. But this is just the moment that the government decides that it wants to make cuts in this area.
This debate has particular relevance to my constituents in Hotham. We are very proud to have one of the Holmesglen TAFE campuses in my electorate. Holmesglen is a terrific institution: it has some great ambitions for educating our local population and it has a particular focus on health, particularly the training of allied health professionals. Last year we saw the first students begin their bachelor of nursing at Holmesglen TAFE—there are 40 places there. Many of these students are actually the first in their families to go on to enrol in a bachelor degree.
As part of this program Holmesglen has invested in a clinical simulation facility, which was funded through Health Workforce Australia. It is a fantastic facility comprising four large teaching wards, microbiology and bioscience labs, two simulation suites, a community apartment, an allied health lab, lecture theatres, general teaching space, a cooperative learning centre, computer labs and teaching offices.
The combination of that facility and the funded health training places has opened a lot of doors for Holmesglen and Holmesglen is now in the process of opening a 150-bed private hospital on its Moorabbin campus, complete with an emergency department. So what we see with this Holmesglen example is a real success story of what Health Workforce Australia can achieve with an institution that wants to innovate in this space. The work that these students are being trained to undertake is enormously significant. We want to see more stories like this all around Australia, not fewer. That is why it is critical that funds for clinical training are not frozen but are invested in supporting our health workers, our health system and our communities.
It is a very important subject that we are discussing today and I think it is an important moment to have this conversation, given all the challenges that I have talked about. But we are starting to get to know this government quite well, and what we see is that they throw out a bit of a line, some early criticisms, and then we will hear something in Senate estimates about funds potentially being frozen—then they wait for the reaction and the funding is eventually cut. So today we are seeing a reaction from this side of the House—many speakers on our side who are going to fight this change because we want to preserve the important work that is being done by this important organisation.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:47): I would like to congratulate the member for Kingston for bringing this fine motion to the House. I think one of the most important issues for each and every one of us in our electorates is health and making sure we have the health workforce that is needed to provide the services that the people we represent in this parliament need. Health is such an important issue; there is not a sector of the community that is not affected by health.
I was absolutely horrified to learn that the Clinical Training Fund had been frozen. I had that feeling that it was back to the future because back in 2006, when the now Prime Minister was the health minister, we were constantly fighting issues just like this. We needed to raise the then minister's attention to the issues when we tabled the Beyond the Blame Gamereport at the end of 2006—one, I might add, that he never responded to and probably never read. That report highlighted how important a skilled workforce is to address the health needs of the Australian community. The then health minister and now Prime Minister ignored that report and ignored the call to make sure that we had the trained workforce.
No-one who served in the parliament when the Prime Minister was the health minister would ever be left doubting his commitment to health. It was non-existent. Under him, bulk-billing rates fell. Now they are back up to a record of over 80 per cent but, at that particular time, under 60 per cent of services in the electorate of Shortland electorate were bulk-billed. He did not invest in training more GPs and nurses; whereas when Labor were in power we invested in training more doctors and nurses. We understood that to deliver health services on the ground you had to have a well-trained, well-funded health workforce. You do not get a trained health workforce by freezing the Clinical Training Fund. All that does is lead to a situation where there are insufficient funds to train those doctors who undertake training in our fine universities.
Each and every day we hear of hospitals and communities looking for doctors and for nurses. Unless they can receive proper training, unless the funds for clinical training are released, we are going to have situations like we have had over the years under those on the other side of this House. Back in 2006 there were a wide range of occupations where there were no health professionals available. They were not trained. The only way to address the issue was to bring doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and allied health professionals in from overseas. When Labor were in government we decided we would make that commitment to our health workforce—and making that commitment to having a trained health workforce meant that you had to invest some money. We saw that as a priority, particularly, as has been mentioned in this debate, because we have an ageing population. With an ageing population you have more chronic diseases and greater demands on the healthcare system. It really pointed out to this side of the House that health and health workforce training was a priority.
I have to congratulate Health Workforce Australia on the fine work that they have done. And I would like to finish by saying to those on the other side of this House: it is not good enough—Australians demand a trained health workforce and they demand the right to be able to go and see a health professional when they need to.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (11:52): I have received four messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one I do not propose to read the messages to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (11:52): I will not keep the House long at all. I had pretty much concluded my remarks when this bill was last before the House, except to move as a second reading amendment the following:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because it would be ill advised to continue with the bill without considering:
(1) the impact of Schedule 1 of this bill in relation to the protection of matters of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(2) government plans for the delegation of approval powers to states through bilateral agreements."
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:53): I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (11:54): I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill today. There are two key elements of this bill, and I will only briefly mention the first. I disagree with the previous speaker in that it seeks to make a technical amendment to the EPBC Act to ensure that past decisions cannot be exposed to legal challenges. I was pleased to hear that despite media reports to the contrary the amendment does not reduce the level of protection provided for threatened species and ecological communities under the act. Australia has incredibly diverse native species, many of which are under threat as a result of human activities, and relevant conservation advice must always be considered.
I intend to focus on the second key element, and part of that is the increasing of penalties under the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act for killing and injuring turtles and dugongs. On 15 August I was proud to stand next to the then shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, Greg Hunt, and local conservation legend Jennie Gilbert of the Cairns Turtle Rehabilitation Centre when we launched our $5 million plan to provide greater protection for dugongs and turtles along the Great Barrier Reef. It came as a result of ongoing community concern about illegal poaching and the need for greater care for our dugong and turtle population. The plan included a commitment to treble the financial penalties for poaching and illegal trafficking of turtle and dugong meat, and these are certainly significant increases. Under the EPBC Act 1999 the maximum fine will increase from $170,000 to $510,000 for the offences of killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving a dugong or a turtle in a Commonwealth area. Where these penalties relate to strict liability offences—for example, used to deter potential offenders rather than to impose punishment—the maximum financial penalty will increase from $85,000 to $255,000. Maximum financial penalties for injuring or taking turtles or dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 will increase from $340,000 for aggravated criminal offences to $1,020,000 and for strict liability offences from $10,200 to $30,600. These increases will be a significant deterrent to those individuals who are doing the wrong thing. We certainly must get the message out that we will be imposing criminal convictions and larger fines. This is not mere rhetoric. These animals are too important for that.
Getting back to our $5 million plan, in addition to the focus on the threats of poaching and illegal hunting, it also has other key elements, including $2 million for specialised Indigenous Ranger Programs for marine conservation along the Far North Queensland Coast and into the Torres Strait and for strengthened enforcement and compliance. This will be done through supporting additional officers on the water and on land to crack down on dugong and turtle poaching and the illegal trade in dugong and turtle meat. We will certainly be working with the Queensland government on the potential for extending the authority of select Indigenous rangers to take action to stop illegal poaching. This is a very important element of this, because while we do have ranger programs in place, in many cases they have absolutely no authority whatsoever. For example, I have known of a ranger standing on a beach with a large number of turtles that had been turned on their backs while they were being butchered, and he did not even have the authority to ask the names of those involved. We need to change that. That badge cannot just be a mickey mouse badge; it actually has to mean something. The rangers have to have the authority to take evidence, to take names, to confiscate equipment that is used in relation to these types of activities and to provide that evidence in a court of law that will see those individuals prosecuted for these illegal activities.
We have an added challenge up there that also needs to be addressed, and this is in the shared zone between Australia and Papua New Guinea, where we need to be working in collaboration with the villages, particularly those in the Western Province area of Papua New Guinea, so that we can work together, because it is as critically important for those villages as it is for the Torres Strait that these turtle and dugong populations are preserved. We are also looking at places like Raine Island, where the turtle breeding area is seriously under threat. It is collaborative work that could be done by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, which is headed by Sheriden Morris in Cairns. She has a wonderful relationship with the villagers in Papua New Guinea and also works well with the Torres Strait community. She would be a great way of bringing both of these together. This would make sure that we are able to get the necessary enforcement and education to make it happen. But it is not going to work unless the Indigenous rangers themselves have the authority to identify and challenge any activities.
The $2 million for the Australian Crime and Misconduct Commission to investigate the practice of illegal killing, poaching and transportation of turtle and dugong meat is another very important initiative. I know that the other side have accused us of being high-handed, but, as they rightfully said, there has never been a prosecution in this area. There is a good reason for that: there are just too many jurisdictions involved, and nobody wants to take responsibility. You have Queensland Fisheries, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Queensland Police and the Federal Police. It just goes around from one to the other. It is little wonder that these activities continue without being punished, because no jurisdiction takes full responsibility for them. By putting them through to the crime commission, at least you have a chance of starting to get some prosecutions.
The $700,000 towards cleaning up marine debris along the Far North Queensland coast, the Torres Strait Islands and the Coral Sea is a very important initiative, particularly in relation to ghost nets, which pose a huge risk for turtles and dugongs as well as other marine species. There are a couple of great organisations that deal with this. Heidi Taylor is the co-founder and director of the Tangaroa Blue Foundation, which carries out a program of beach clean-ups all along the Far North Queensland coast, as do the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers, who do great work collecting ghost nets on Western Cape York. During a beach clean-up at Mapoon in July, members of the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers, a team from Conservation Volunteers Australia, and volunteers from GhostNets Australia and Tangaroa Blue covered 11 kilometres of beach and removed just under 3,700 kilograms of debris, including 7,154 rubber thongs, 877 cigarette lighters and 2,663 gill net floats. So you can see the extent of the problem, and that is on just 11 kilometres of beach. It is a critical initiative.
There has also been $300,000 set aside to support the Cairns and Fitzroy Island turtle rehabilitation centres. This will certainly help with capital works and help the hospital achieve a permanent and sustainable future. The Cairns and Fitzroy Island rehabilitation centres do some fantastic work with a large group of volunteers. Doug Gamble, who is the owner of the Fitzroy Island Resort, generously donated the land for the Fitzroy Island centre earlier this year, and Jennie Gilbert, who I mentioned earlier, works tirelessly on behalf of these creatures. The funding will be well-utilised in rehabilitating turtles and returning them to the sea.
There are other issues that also need to be addressed. I have been speaking with the minister on these, and I am very keen that we continue to pursue these if we are going to deal with looking after the turtles and dugongs in the longer term. I certainly have major concerns with the illegal trading of meat. I know that it does happen in my electorate. Unfortunately, this turtle and dugong meat is cryovaced, frozen and transported through airports. In my view, there should be a prohibition on the transport of this meat. I am in absolute, total support of native title and of ensuring that native title rights for traditional hunting are protected. However, I am very much of the opinion that it is not in the spirit of native title for individuals to go out there and slaughter large numbers of turtles and dugongs, cryovac them up into plastic, freeze them and then send them all around Australia. At the moment they can do that quite legally if they claim it is for domestic use. It is my view that these creatures, if they are going to be slaughtered in traditional ways for cultural purposes and ceremonies, should be consumed and used in the area in which they were taken, because a very important part of the cultural use of these animals is respect for the animal. Quite frankly, I see no respect in having them sent in cryovac bags around Australia just so somebody can enjoy a little bit of turtle and dugong in Canberra or Sydney or Melbourne. That is an area that I think we need to address.
Another area that concerns me immensely is to see the images on Facebook of individuals going out there boasting of their slaughter of juvenile animals and what have you, and making all sorts of inappropriate comments. Again, it gets back to respect for the animal and blatant abuse of it. These activities are certainly ramping up public support for a total ban on the right to hunt endangered and vulnerable species. Around the country there is very serious momentum for a proposal that would see the total banning of hunting of these creatures for any reason. I would like to congratulate Colin Riddell from Save Australian Dugongs and Turtles, in conjunction with Bob Irwin, for his outstanding and passionate efforts. They have certainly rallied organisations, such as Animals Australia, and others too, such as the RSPCA, to call for an urgent change to the Native Title Act.
This is understandable and, unfortunately, this decision will not be made in our area, but rather it will be made in the metropolitan areas of Sydney or Melbourne. Make no mistake, if it continues, particularly with the Facebook images, there is a high probability that these guys will be successful. While I admire the work that Bob Irwin and Colin Riddell are doing, they know that I have a real issue with the extinguishment of native title rights. I urge the Indigenous communities to take control of this so that we do not lose this opportunity. That means that we have to deal with those individuals who are blatantly abusing the rules and posting on Facebook et cetera. While I disagree totally with Colin and Bob in this area, I can understand why they continue to pursue it. If we do not get something done there and in regard to the transporting of the meat, I do believe it just opens things up for abuse. It certainly is not in the spirit of native title.
Another area that I have great concern about is the activities of a few individuals who are getting involved in taking creatures from green zones in our region.
I have many examples there. One family in particular is going to a place in Green Island and, in front of horrified visitors, slaughtering turtles—which are seen as being like pets—and large fish. These animals have lost all fear of humans. These individuals weave amongst tourists swimming at Green Island and spear fish and turtles. They drag the turtles onto the beach, rip them open, pull the eggs out of them and cut them up, with maybe 50 or 60 absolutely horrified overseas tourists standing there watching them. They take what they want from the turtles and leave the mess for the national park rangers to clean up, and the rangers have absolutely no authority to stop this from happening. Michaelmas Cay is an area that has been protecting sea birds. The same group goes out there and, in front of horrified tourists, clubs to death large numbers of sea birds and takes them away, and nothing is done.
You can see why people are asking the question, 'Why on earth aren't we doing something about that, when we are making such a noise about the whales?' It would be better to make green zones, particularly those where there is human interaction with these creatures, no-go areas rather than having this senseless slaughter. It is no different to walking into somebody's house and beating their pet kitten to death, quite frankly, because these creatures have no fear of people. I congratulate Steve Davies, who has been very involved in trying to stop this, for raising the issue.
I think where we are going is a good start. I certainly support the initiatives that we see here today. As I said, I urge the minister to consider further claims on this. At the end of the day, the only way we are going to be able to comprehensively deal with this is to give the authority to the Indigenous rangers, to the Indigenous elders—who know what is traditional and know what is and is not appropriate—to deal with this. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (12:07): The remarks of the member for Leichhardt were very interesting, and I have taken note of them, but I wish to direct my remarks to a different section of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. The House will be aware that bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The purpose of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is, unsurprisingly, the conservation of Australia's biodiversity—our unique and beautiful birds, plants, and animals.
It is therefore timely to ask: how well is the act performing in achieving this outcome? Sadly, it is failing badly. According to BirdLife Australia, there are currently 392 different kinds of fauna listed as threatened under the act, including no fewer than 112 different types of birds. Nineteen of these species are listed as critically endangered. There are many different examples of how Australian wildlife is in decline, but one of the most striking was covered in a report in Australian Birdlife magazine in September this year by Sean Dooley and Samantha Vine titled 'Parrots in Peril'. It reports that no fewer than 12 of Australia's around 60 parrots and cockatoos are listed as either endangered or critically endangered. That is around 20 per cent of our most loved and highest profile fauna at imminent risk of extinction.
The Norfolk Island green parrot has a current population of between 50 and 100, with possibly as few as 11 breeding females. The western ground parrot population is around 100 birds, in two separate populations in Western Australia. That population has declined by over 80 per cent in the last three generations. The orange-bellied parrot migrates between coastal Victoria and Tasmania. They are now down to around 45 birds. The night parrot population is unknown—it is an inland Australian species—but the best guess is that it is around 250 birds.
The Coxen's fig-parrot, which is a rainforest bird of Southern Queensland, has been estimated at 100 breeding birds, but there are surveys that suggest that fewer than 50 may remain. The eastern regent parrot of inland Victoria and South Australia comprises around 1,500 adult birds. The population has declined in some parts of South Australia by 66 per cent in the last 20 years. The golden-shouldered parrot of Cape York Peninsula nests in tunnels that it excavates into termite mounds. Its current population is probably about 2,500 birds—1,500 around the Morehead River and around 1,000 around the Staaten River. The swift parrot migrates between Tasmania and Victoria and New South Wales. There are approximately 1,000 breeding pairs of this bird, with a maximum of 2,500 individuals.
Four types of black cockatoo are also endangered. The Kangaroo Island glossy black cockatoo adult population is 350 birds. The south-eastern red-tailed black cockatoo population is approximately 1,500, and that is declining. The Baudin's black cockatoo of south-west Western Australia has a current population of 10,000 to 15,000. The Carnaby's black cockatoo has a population of approximately 40,000, and that is also declining.
Penny Olsen had a lengthy report on the sad history of the orange-bellied parrot in the Australian Birdlife publication. She writes that conservationists have struggled to keep the orange-bellied parrot going. It is precarious to say the least to maintain a species once it has sunk to such low numbers. There is no resilience left in the population to combat the inevitable challenges nature throws at it: fire, flood, famine and other upheavals, not to mention inbreeding. As a final blow, climate change may be shifting the bird's climatic envelope south and off the southern edge of the continent, carrying with it the unfortunate parrot. Orange-bellied parrots are breeding in captivity, so, instead of a thriving wild population, we may be left with institutionalised orange-bellied birds. Extinction in the wild, I think, is a very dreary prospect. As Penny Olsen laments, there was a time when politicians feared an extinction on their watch, but that seems to have lapsed over the years.
What does BirdLife Australia say needs to be done? They say that we need to have a national threatened bird recovery fund to implement recovery plans for critically endangered birds, supported by federal funding of $25 million per annum. They also say that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires strengthening. In particular, they say the act requires a mechanism to account for cumulative impact and the ongoing loss of threatened species habitat. I think they are 100 per cent right.
The Australian Conservation Foundation also urges that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act be strengthened. They say that the act needs to be changed so that Commonwealth decision powers under environmental law can never be devolved to the states. They also express concern that the act allows the federal minister a wide discretion as to how the EPBC Act is implemented. This can lead to decisions based on political expediency rather than environmental standards.
The Australian Conservation Foundation says that the EPBC Act should specify objective, science based, mandatory standards by which ministerial decisions under the act are made, and impose a duty on the minister to protect the environment. Improving third-party access to merits reviews of decisions taken under the act is critical, allowing civil society to help enforce compliance and increase public confidence in the act.
What does the bill before the House do? It takes us in exactly the opposite direction. This amendment marks the beginning of efforts by the Liberal government to deconstruct all the good work done by previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, in protecting the environment, which the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act helps ensure. For this Liberal government it is all about paving paradise to put up a parking lot—whether on issues such as reversing action on climate change and protecting the Great Barrier Reef or this amendment, they have nailed their colours to the mast of environmental vandalism and the trashing of this country's beautiful and unique national heritage.
The first part of this bill effectively removes any need for the minister to consider certain environmental advice when approving things such as ports, mines and housing developments. With many of our most loved species on the brink of extinction—including the Leadbeater's possum, the Tasmanian devil and bilbies—we should be strengthening their protection, not undermining it. The bill before the House adds a clause to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which states that a decision to approve a development will not be invalid merely because the minister failed to receive relevant approved conservation advice. This bill effectively removes the legal requirement for the minister to consider threatened and endangered species when approving projects. It is not just about the federal minister, though. If and when plans to delegate environmental approval powers to Queensland and New South Wales come into effect, the Newman and O'Farrell governments will also be relieved of the duty of considering conservation advice before approving projects.
Labor is opposed to weakening approval powers and, like many in the community, we simply do not trust Queensland Premier Campbell Newman to protect environmental assets such as the Great Barrier Reef. This bill drastically weakens the EPBC Act's protection of threatened and endangered species. Although the minister is still notionally expected to consider formal advice about how to protect these species—the so-called 'conservation advice'—the bill removes any capacity to legally challenge an approval on the basis that advice was not properly considered. Even worse, it does this retrospectively. Current legislation ensures that the minister takes into account all the relevant advice before approving a decision on a new mine, on a port expansion or on a significant new housing development. Depending on the type and location of a project, this advice could include information about a native species that is threatened or endangered. So what we have here is a bill that, on the one hand, weakens protection for threatened species such as the Tasmanian devil whilst, on the other hand, increases penalties for illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs. Weakening environmental laws is environmental vandalism. It is regrettable, but I think the Newman government will never protect the environment and cannot be trusted to protect our natural heritage, including the Great Barrier Reef.
The changes in the first part of this bill will not only mean that the federal minister does not have to consider expert advice but also that state ministers will not have to consider this advice. There is a serious question around our international obligations that needs to be posed in this debate. As a good global citizen Australia has signed a number of treaties. Those treaties include: the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat; the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage; the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals; the International Tropical Timber Agreement; and the Convention on Biodiversity.
Schedule 1 of this bill seems to have been precipitated by the recent Tarkine case, which saw an approval decision overturned because advice was not provided to the then minister by the department. In that case the court found that the decision to approve the mine was invalid because the minister had failed to consider the approved conservation advice for the Tasmanian devil, a threatened species under the act. Unlike the previous Labor government, which did not seek to change the law as a result of this challenge, the Liberal government have apparently decided that if the law does not suit their agenda they will simply change it—take their bat and ball and go home.
This change would mean that legal challenges such as this one would fail. There are now ten mines proposed for the Tarkine over the next five years. I understand that nine of these mines are Pilbara-style, open cut mines. The Tarkine is home to the last disease-free population of the Tasmanian devil. The Tasmanian devil, as the House would be aware, is being pushed to extinction by the fatal devil facial tumour disease. This disease has been estimated to have killed 80 per cent of the Tasmanian devil population in the past decade. As such, the habitat of the Tarkine is critical to the survival of this iconic species in the wild.
The Tarkine contains an extraordinary expanse of temperate rainforest—one of the world's greatest remaining tracts of temperate rainforest. Running continuously for more than 70 kilometres and reaching beyond the Arthur and Pieman rivers, this magnificent rainforest includes the Rapid, Keith, Donaldson and Savage river systems. This tract of rainforest is Australia's largest single tract of rainforest wilderness. Globally, it is one of the most significant remaining tracts of temperate rainforest left on the planet. Given that more than three-quarters of Australia's rainforest have already been permanently destroyed, I believe that it is critical that we protect the fragments that are left.
This bill is just further evidence of a government that quashes debate and refuses to listen to the experts. They have been shutting down bodies providing advice on climate change, and now they want to ignore conservation advice as well. The conservationists have also said that the amendment before the House would stymie a challenge to the Maules Creek mine in NSW, which they say was approved based on erroneous information.
Whitehaven Coal, the mine's developer, was allowed to clear 544 hectares of endangered box gum woodland as well as further habitat that contains threatened species such as the swift parrot, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, and the greater long-eared bat. The Minister for the Environment is being urged by conservation groups to revoke the approval. Jess Abrahams, the healthy ecosystems campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation, has said:
Review and recourse from third parties to government decisions is an essential part of democracy, so it's very worrying this is being removed.
… … …
Environmental protection is suffering a death by a thousand cuts at the moment. Laws are being weakened and approvals are being handed over to the states, which have a questionable record of protecting the environment.
… … …
We should be strengthening laws but instead we are watering them down.
She is absolutely right. Conservation advice is fundamental to making the best decisions on projects that have potentially harmful impacts on listed species. The objective of the act is to protect the environment. This amendment removes ministerial accountability and weakens environmental protection.
The government is already in the process of attempting to devolve federal approval powers to state governments, a move that would see state conservative premiers in charge of some of our country's greatest natural assets. The laws that protect Australia's most significant environmental assets—our World Heritage areas, precious water resources, internationally significant wetlands and threatened species—are not 'green tape'. The areas are priceless assets for all of us to find tranquillity and enrichment of the soul—much more important than wealth foregone for miners and developers. I urge the House to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for the environment.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:24): It is a privilege to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I note that it is really the English cricket team that has become an endangered species in this country, with the final fall of wicket in the second test heading our way. Congratulations to Harris on the last wicket—fantastic result!
On a more serious matter, it is more impressive to follow the member for Leichhardt on the first component of this bill, which I totally support, on turtles and dugongs, and to hear his stories about what is going on in his electorate and at the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great keeping of our election commitment that we are increasing the penalties. It is something we said we would do and is yet another tick for the coalition's environmental credentials on improving the situation in a way that will practically assist in an outcome on the illegal pouching of dugongs and turtles. It is done in a way that will not impact upon Indigenous rights to hunt in native-title areas but will increase criminal and civil penalties for the killing, injuring and taking, trading, keeping or moving of a turtle or dugong in a Commonwealth marine area or within the Great Barrier Reef marine park. It is something that is a worthwhile endeavour: keeping our election commitments.
We are moving an important amendment to the second component of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure that if the Minister for the Environment does not have relevant approved advice it will not invalidate the decision under the act. This follows the court case that the member for Wills referred to, and I do want to take him up on one point that he argued: we are not making a case about a particular issue about a parrot or possum or other serious issues around the country; this is a legal issue about the separation of powers and about which jurisdiction will have the ability to make decisions that relate to serious approvals for major projects and could potentially affect past projects.
The member for Wills missed a very important point, and I was disappointed to see that he missed this. It is on raising the matter of the court case that led to the amendment being put into the House. It is in regard to the mining case of the Tarkine approved by the then environmental minister, Tony Burke, and re-approved by Labor. So, in terms of outcomes, the member for Wills really does not have cause for complaint. If he is trying to suggest this amendment would have altered the situation or is somehow a profoundly bad thing to do, the previous Labor government went ahead with the mine approval anyway. That may be completely appropriate; there may be nothing wrong with that. But the member for Wills, in avoiding that issue, is not necessarily representing the case in a fair way.
It was okay for the previous Labor government to continue to approve this mine in the Tarkine, although the Commonwealth was exposed to serious legal action on a fairly oblique point on this advice. Think about all of the green regulations at both a state and federal level; all of the regulations that cover approvals which you must qualify for in Australia to get an approval for a mine underway. We know that they are substantial, we know that they are comprehensive and we know that the advice received from a state and federal level is detailed. All of these considerations are taken into account. But to expose the Commonwealth and these projects to retrospective problems with their approvals does not assist anybody.
Hence the amendment we see before us today. The member for Wills skirts around saying that since 7 September there has been some dark pall cast over the environment in Australia and that concrete manufacturing is something that—as stock has gone up in Australia—we are using to concrete wilderness. 'Paved paradise' is his phrase from a famous song. I do not think that the climate has changed since 7 September or that things have got warmer or that possums and birds have more things to fear from with this government than they did from the previous government. Let us be serious and realistic about this. We do need to protect our environment and we do need to proceed with projects that are important to our economy and our society. Legally speaking, it is a better situation for the parliament to approve this bill and so to ensure that an act of the minister is not subject to that uncertainty for a major project or major approval once it has gone through all of the considerable regulatory hoops that you must go through in this country.
It is why we have a green-tape agenda to reduce green tape in Australia. That is an unnecessary duplication at state and federal level. We think green tape is probably one of the biggest impediments to getting business moving in this country and one of the main contributors to making our businesses less competitive on the international stage. By removing many of these many duplicate layers of green tape we can get things done and protect the environment. That is, of course, the best way for human beings to coexist with the natural world we live in.
It really is not a great idea for the members opposite to come in here and say that we are against this particular parrot, or that particular possum or that bird. That is not the case. We take seriously the conservation advice delivered to the government. But it is not a good legal case, when we have a separation of powers, to have the Commonwealth exposed—or to have the minister, via the Commonwealth—exposed to his decisions being second guessed every step of the way. We are literally at the very end of a very substantial process that anyone must go through to get a mine approved in this country.
I fully support this amendment and those technical amendments that address the risk make this legislation retrospective. That is, we will not now see a flurry of legal action taken in response to previous decisions. The member for Wills should look pretty carefully at that part of the bill which we are debating here today. We are making this retrospective—not the decisions of former Liberal Party or National Party environment ministers over the past six years but the decisions of the previous government that could be subject to legal exposure. That is appropriate and proper and an adult approach to government. The opposition comes and suggests that, somehow, we have a dark and evil agenda in relation to the environment when we are simply saying that the processes that we have gone through are rigorous, the green standards that have to be met are high in Australia by anybody's benchmark and the minister has had the appropriate advice and has had the chance to consider that advice. We believe that, once all of that has been gone through, it should not be subject to particular legal action specifically in relation to the nature of the advice received by the Minister for the Environment.
I do not believe that the member for Wills made a very compelling case. He may have had some good things to say about protecting various sections of flora and fauna in our country, but he did not make a compelling case. He conveniently overlooked that in the particulars of this legal matter the Tarkine mine was ultimately approved by the then environment minister anyway. So the outcome was the same, but the legal challenge that was gone through is an unnecessary impediment to doing business that we can remove by passing this piece of high-quality legislation and ensuring that we do not expose the Commonwealth unnecessarily to this risk.
I fully support this bill, and I hope that members opposite start to tone down their approach of accusing us of wanting to concrete every piece of environment in the country. It simply is not the case. It is overblown rhetoric. It is not really necessary. Frankly speaking, it is the case that too many of our projects, which are so important to our economy and to Australia's prosperity, are being wound-up in too much duplication and green tape, and it is something that this government will look at.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:33): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. For the benefit of listeners, the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to address the implications arising from the Federal Court's decision in Tarkine National Coalition Inc. v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, otherwise known as the Tarkine case, which the previous speaker referred to. It also provides additional protection for turtles and dugongs by increasing the financial penalties for various offences and for civil penalty provisions, and it amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 by providing additional protection for protected species under that act.
Protecting our natural environment is important as economic development to this country because it is about creating jobs and prosperity, and both are of equal importance to the nation and to government. The two are in fact compatible if managed responsibly. To this government the environment appears to be expendable whenever it is pitted against economic development. In fact, not just for this government but also for conservative state governments across the country, we are now seeing a clear track record where the environment seems to come off second best whenever it in any way impedes money-making ventures and development.
Sadly, what is not very well understood by many is that damaging the environment has, indeed, substantial economic consequences. The preamble to the Australian government response to the report of the independent review of theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, otherwise known as the Hawke review, said:
… ecosystems deliver essential services worth between US$21 trillion and US$72 trillion a year, which is comparable with the 2008 World Gross National Income of US$58 trillion.
So around the world we can see that the economic value of maintaining and sustaining our natural environment is on par with the gross national income that is generated through economic development right throughout the world. In fact, it is a fool's gain to profit at the expense of a degraded environment.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that Australia has experienced the largest documented decline in biodiversity of any continent over the last 200 years. Australia's rate of species decline is amongst the world's highest and is the highest amongst OECD countries. This is a matter I spoke about in June of this year when addressing a private member's motion that I raised in this place, criticising the conservative state governments of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria for allowing land clearing, cattle grazing, logging, prospecting and tourist activities in conservation areas where those activities presented a serious risk to the environment.
The Abbott government now seeks to reverse the World Heritage Listing of some 100,000 acres of Tasmania's Tarkine. As the shadow minister for the environment on our side—the member for Port Adelaide—quite properly alluded to, it has probably never occurred previously within this parliament that we have seen a reversal of the international listing of a World Heritage area.
The government is now going to defer some $650 million of Murray-Darling Basin water buybacks and is creating uncertainty about the additional 450 gigalitres of water that was to be returned to the system under the previous Labor government. I note that this decision will particularly affect the state of South Australia. I also note that, since the 7 September election, the Liberal members from South Australia have hardly said a word about this issue. Yet prior to the election and in the months leading up to the September federal election they were happy to wear the 'I love Murray' T-shirts in order to promote themselves as being champions of the cause of restoring water to the River Murray so that South Australia could receive its fair share of that water and so that the Lower Lakes in South Australia would not be left in the degraded state that they were in at the height of the drought a few years ago. So you take a particular stand before the election because you know that is what the people in South Australia expect from you, but, after the election, when you have been re-elected, you walk away from the commitments that you made leading up to the election—you backtrack on them, you start to withdraw the money that is required to create the water returns and you withdraw the money that is required to restore the additional 450 gigalitres which South Australians fought very hard for because it was so important and made so much difference to the final amount of water that flows into South Australia.
In fact, this agreement was reached after almost 100 years of bickering between all the states. It took the best part of six years of the Labor government's being in office to finally sign off on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I will give credit to the opposition—the plan was initiated under the national Water Act 2007, under the Howard government. It started then, and it took us six years to finally get an agreement. We finally did get an agreement, and then we saw the new government walking away from it. It is all about an environmental matter. It is all about ensuring that the environment is treated as importantly as every other aspect of this country.
I have concerns about this legislation because it seems to be going down the path of walking away from environmental responsibilities. Firstly, the minister is no longer required to take into consideration certain environmental advice when approving ports, mines and housing developments. That in itself is concerning, because if the minister is not required to take into consideration certain environmental advice then, effectively, he has no particular accountability to the environmental standards that we set. In other words, the environmental consideration can become irrelevant to the minister's decision. There is no accountability mechanism if the minister is not required to take into account certain environmental considerations. Secondly, I have concerns because the minister is likely to rely on environmental assessments carried out by the state governments, who, in my view, have already displayed very poor form in protecting our environment. Last week the Prime Minister, in answer to a question without notice in this place, said that since coming to office his government had, in the previous eight weeks, given environmental approval for projects worth $160 billion. I have no idea which projects the Prime Minister was referring to, but I hope that the environmental assessments required for the approval of those projects were thorough and that the minister did not ignore any of the environmental consequences of those approvals which might have been brought to his attention.
I certainly welcome decisions where we get on with projects that have the necessary approvals, but I hope that they are done in a way that is consistent with the environmental obligations of any government and that we have not simply fast-tracked on the basis that this legislation is going to get through and that the minister is no longer required to take into consideration certain environmental advice when granting those approvals. It would be of interest to know exactly who provided the assessments to the minister on those approvals worth $160 billion. Was it done through the Commonwealth, was it done through state governments or was it done through the proponents? Whose advice did he rely on?
I believe the minister knows that this legislation is a backward step in managing our environment. The way he has gone about bringing it into this House is interesting. He brought in legislation, which I suspect he very much expects to be criticised for by the environmental groups around Australia, and he has done so by simultaneously connecting it to a bit of environmental legislation that protects turtles and dugongs. He is trying to sweeten the legislation or dress it up in an environmentally positive way by adding the protection for dugongs and turtles. I totally support any legislative aspects that go to the protection of dugongs and turtles. There is no question about that at all. However, if the minister were serious about the protection of dugongs and turtles, he could equally have come into this place with separate legislation focusing on and dealing with those two matters only.
Secondly, if he was serious about protecting the dugongs and turtles he would provide more resources to those very authorities and community bodies that currently exist to enable them to enforce greater compliance with the laws, because the problem with the dugongs and turtles is not that we do not have laws in place but that they are not being in any way policed by anyone. So simply increasing the penalties, as he has done, without providing the additional resources to monitor the laws becomes meaningless. I note that, in drawing up the additional legislation, the minister at no time consulted with the traditional owners: with the land and sea councils or with the Indigenous groups of the area who know best how to protect dugongs and turtles.
Putting $2 million into the Australian Crime Commission, as the minister has done, to investigate the illegal killing of turtles and dugongs is not the answer. A better answer would be to put that kind of money into supporting the local groups. One of the lessons that we learned through the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications, of which I have been a member for the last six years, was that if you want to best manage local environmental assets you do so by empowering the local community groups that have the expertise, the knowledge and the commitment to manage the very things that you want looked after. They are the people who are on the ground, they know what works best and they are the people that care the most. Yet that is not what this government seems to be doing.
Our environment around Australia and around the world is increasingly under threat from climate change—a matter I have spoken about on other occasions—from mining, from farming, from residential and commercial growth, from fishing, from construction and even from tourism. Wherever human activity occurs, the environment is always under threat. That is not to say that we cannot work compatibly with it; we can. But we need standards, and we need to ensure that those standards are complied with and met. We are working with the state governments to try to streamline the processes that are required to ensure that those proper environmental standards are achieved. I welcome the fact that we are working with the states, and I welcome the opportunity to try to streamline the processes and make them more efficient. What I do not want to see is streamlining coming into effect at the expense of good policy and at the expense of the environment.
A couple of years ago the Labor government commissioned a review of the EPBC Act. It was referred to as the Hawke review. Of the 71 recommendations put up by the Hawke review, none included the legislation that we are debating today. The most thorough review of that legislation did not incorporate the changes to the legislation that the minister is now proposing. For those reasons, I support the amendments moved by the opposition.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (12:48): The member for Makin talked about the environment being under threat. Let me educate the member for Makin about who is in fact under threat in my state, in my electorate. It is the worker, the investor and the general community on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I would ask the member for Makin, the member for Wills and the member for Port Adelaide: how many mines are being developed in your electorates? How is the unemployment rate going in your electorates? How is investor confidence going in your electorates?
The reality is that the members opposite, having now moved the amendment—which, I understand, they have foreshadowed—just do not get it. Is nigh on 50 per cent of their state locked up? No, it is not. We are sick and tired in our state, and certainly in my electorate of Braddon, of being treated as some social, political and environmental experiment. The reality here is that we need this amendment to ensure that, in future, confidence can be gained by those people who go through the approval process and who do everything that they need to do.
I will not be spending any time speaking on the first part of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill. As you would expect, I want to use my time to focus on the second part. This bill seeks to amend the EPBC Act to ensure that if the Minister for the Environment does not have regard to and relevant approved advice, it will not invalidate a decision under the act. That section of the bill is of particular interest, as I said, to many constituents, to small and medium-sized businesses and to mining operations in my electorate of Braddon. The questions here are: do we want to continue to stand in the way of development or not? Do we want to continue to add to the list of endangered species by adding that of the worker? I do not think so. I would hope that members opposite would also agree that that is not what we want.
It was only last week in this chamber that I delivered my maiden speech. As anyone who has done it over the last few weeks and those yet to come will know, it is a very special moment in an elected member's time. What they speak about often indicates the priorities of the particular member. In my maiden speech I made the point very strongly that mining companies need certainty in the application process, and this amendment is certainly timely for me to speak about. I said I have a vision of a mining industry that is not only finally confident in the processes of approval that they undertake but also confident that the process optimises environmental outcomes while being efficient, fair, reasonable, dependable and free of opportunistic political intervention. I went on to say that Australian mines of the 21st century know well their environmental responsibilities. It is high time we got off their backs and let them once again stimulate our economy; the members opposite want to get back on their back. They have not got off. They will stay on the back of development in Tasmania. As I said last week, enough is enough.
If you were to believe what has been coming from that side over the last hour, you would think that there is some sort of deep, evil conspiracy that somehow or other attaches to this amendment. But I can say that this amendment is about finally shining some sunlight on the inconsistencies and vagaries of this act and the way in which it opens loopholes for groups such as the Save the Tarkine coalition in my electorate. I believe that this amendment is in fact the first step towards achieving many of the goals that we have set in re-opening Tasmania for business.
The conservation advice amendment is a technical amendment that addresses a risk so that past or future decisions made under the EPBC Act will not be invalidated if the minister does not meet the requirement to have regard to any relevant approved conservation advice. We need to understand what this means. It means that—after the process has been gone through and everything has been considered that could be considered—if suddenly something pops up from somewhere, it does not open the door to it's being something the minister did not give consideration to. The amendment that we see before us is vital for Braddon, for my state and for other parts of the country, as it is currently the case that the EPBC Act decisions could be challenged and overturned if a court rules that a minister has not given due consideration to relevant conservation advice, which potentially exposes a series of past project approvals to possible legal challenge.
I believe it is important to note here that this amendment does not reduce or alter the level of protection for the environment. It just does not. The conservation advice amendment does not reduce the level of protection provided for threatened species and ecological communities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The amendment is technical and designed to ensure the validity of decisions made under the act.
If the members opposite want to continue to stand in the way of development in the electorate of Braddon and in Tasmania and across the country, be that on their heads. They just do not get it. The former members who were in this place obviously did not represent sufficiently the interests of my state and my electorate, because, if they had, the previous parliament, the 43rd Parliament, would have dealt with this and would have given the confidence that is required. The perfect example of this obviously goes to the matter that has already been raised, and that is the issue of Shree Minerals, who, in July of the year just gone, had their application for an iron ore mine overturned by the courts following a challenge by the Save the Tarkine organisation.
I will digress just for a moment to say that—and this is breaking news, I suspect—they are up to it again. The Venture Minerals proposal has been going along reasonably swimmingly as another great job-creating investment in my electorate, but the Save the Tarkine coalition are up to it again. They have been back to the High Court with a further intervention in that process. With only a week to go for the case to be heard, it obviously has not given enough time for that matter to be considered properly without damaging the prospects of the court case. And now what have we got? We are coming into Christmas. How beautiful is their timing! They are a bunch of geniuses! We will not get this matter heard until, probably, February, and, as is too often the case, more than likely jobs will be at risk over the next two months through the Christmas-New Year period. What a disgrace! They are up to it again: working with lawyers who just want to attack development in Tasmania and who continue to use my state and my electorate as some sort of political experiment, working pro bono to make a name for themselves—a group that sits around a kitchen table for its committee meetings, or perhaps meets in a phone box, because that is how many of them there are! But they are up to it again.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr WHITELEY: You can laugh, but you should know better. My state is in deep trouble.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr WHITELEY: You should know better too, and you should know and understand what this is all about.
Shree Minerals have since had their application approved—thank goodness—and I can say here today that their Nelson Bay mine, located about 70 kilometres south-west of Smithton, has increased production at the mine and is now on the verge of having its first shipment of iron ore out of the Burnie port. It is about jobs, to me. That is why I am here; that is why I got elected. We are about development—acceptable and approved through the processes—and this amendment now goes to protecting these applications in the future from any past or future disputes.
What is going on at Shree Minerals in my electorate is momentous not only for that company but also for that community—a community that has been in a very awkward spiral of job losses over the last few years. It is telling that, on the day that Shree Minerals finally began work on the mine and so bringing employment to a hurting community, this group, which could meet in a phone box, said—when jobs have been made available to people in my electorate and they wander into their workplace with pride in anticipation of a pay cheque to feed their family—'It is a shameful day.' But I will tell you what is a shameful day. It is when such a minority group can have such a negative impact on a community. That is what they are up to. They are economic vandals. There is no doubt about that. They never accept the reality. They will never accept the umpire's decision. They do not care if jobs are lost; they want to keep their name in the press. They ought to go somewhere else. Maybe they should go to the electorates of you over there—the ones who are not supporting this amendment today. Maybe then you would get a taste of what it is like to have people continually trying to lock up even more of your state. We have nearly 50 per cent—just get that: 50 per cent—of my state locked up so that you cannot do any development, and they want more. They will never be satisfied with what they get. In the very area that they protest in, over the last 150 years, hundreds of mines have been mined in my electorate, and thousands upon thousands of jobs and thousands upon thousands of families' lifestyles have been sustained through that activity.
This just cannot go on. So I welcome this amendment and I cannot believe that members opposite will stand in the way of this amendment. In the months leading up to the campaign, they all of a sudden found their conscience and, together with the Deputy Premier in Tasmania, Mr Green, put their hands up to say: 'We are pro mining. We will do what we have to do. They are a bunch of nerds,' and other words you would not want to say in this parliament, to distance themselves from these people. No, you are not. Your words are hollow. You are not distancing yourself from the Greens, the minority groups or from the Save the Tarkine coalition. You are back in bed with them today through trying to knock back this amendment and put forward your own amendments to withhold schedule 1. So do not dare tell people in my electorate and in my state that you are on their team. You are anything but on their team. You are with the enemy on this. You need to support this amendment.
Mining is so important an industry in Tasmania and in my electorate and it has to be a part of the economic recovery. The mining industry's current value-added contribution to Tasmania is about $1.3 billion, or approaching six per cent of the state's GDP. This is not to be frowned at. This is a huge part of what the economy of Tasmania is about. I cannot stand here in this place today and not urge members opposite to have some sense of justice for the people of Tasmania. Do not try to play these political games. I can see what you are up to. It is absolutely transparent. You just want to be stoppers and hinderers. The people of my electorate of Braddon and the people of Tasmania have had enough. Do not dare put up your hand in my electorate and say you are on the team of the developer, of the miner, of the worker or of the families when you sneak up here into Canberra—hardly with a member of the Labor Party now represented in this place, other than the member for Franklin—a week or two out from Christmas and stand in the way of getting legislation through this House that will ensure what happened to Shree Minerals will not happen to someone else.
To suggest for one moment that the environment in this country or in my state is under threat could be nothing further from the truth. This country has a proud environmental record. Have we made mistakes? Are there things we wish we had not done back then? Of course there are. But obviously the intelligence and the research was not available back then. It is now our job to get research and intelligence and accumulate it, and we do. Every assessment and proposal has to jump through hoop after hoop. And even when you get to the end of the hoops and it has been approved, unless we change this legislation it will always be possible for someone, some group, meeting in a phone box somewhere to decide it is time to put another spanner in the works, to chuck another wobbly, and try to stop development in my state. That time should be over. I plead with members opposite to reconsider their position and support this legislation as it stands and as is required to give certainty in my electorate of Braddon.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:02): The former speaker started strongly for two or three minutes, where he quoted himself, but as soon as he got into other territory he really started to flounder. The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 on one level is about protecting turtles and dugongs, which everyone supports. But on another level it is a stalking horse. It is about protecting the ability of the Minister for the Environment to effectively ignore recommendations about developments. It removes the legal requirement for the minister to consider threatened and endangered species, but it does increase penalties for illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs.
As a Queenslander—I married someone from Cairns and all of my in-laws are up in North Queensland—I understand the importance of the Great Barrier Reef and of turtles and dugongs, which come all the way down to Brisbane. All six species of marine turtles are listed under the EPBC Act as threatened: the loggerhead, the leatherback and the olive ridleys are actually endangered, and the green, hawksbill and flatback are vulnerable. So, obviously, we should do all we can to make sure they are protected. The same applies to dugongs, for which there are all sorts of problems, because they are migratory. Also, there are lots of threats to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, where dugongs do a lot of their breeding. Some of the populations have not recovered from Cyclone Yasi—in terms of the flow-off—and there are all sorts of challenges. I commend the Minister for the Environment for that part of the legislation.
But, as I said, this is not about turtles and dugongs. This is actually about a stalking horse. Why would an environment minister still continue to draw pay if they propose that the decision maker will not have regard to approved conservation advices when they make a decision? Why would an environment minister abrogate their right to run their ruler over the environmental advice provided to them? Unless the Minister for the Environment comes in here and says, 'I should have my pay cut in half,' then he has no credibility at all when it comes to this.
Let us be realistic. The mining industry of 2013 is a completely different industry to the mining industry of 100 years ago that created moonscapes in parts of Tasmania. Those days are long gone. Mining industries now get big ticks for making sure they protect the environment. The rehabilitation they carry out is world class. We are world leaders when it comes to rehabilitation. I say this after having worked as an adviser to the Queensland Resources Council. I know the peak body in Queensland quite well and I know the great work that has been done when it comes to rehabilitation. I do not know mines in Tasmania, but I do know mines in Queensland. I know Queensland has a lot of things going for it that are not dissimilar to Tasmania in that we have a brand that says we are clean, green and a great tourism destination. We also have some of the best resources in the world.
How do we balance those? I can tell you, Member for Braddon, what we do not do. We do not throw out the rule book when it comes to the environment, because that effectively is what we are doing here. This stalking horse that those opposite are carping about is all about saying that the environment minister does not have to have regard to the conservation advice provided to them.
Mr Whiteley: It is not a stalking horse.
Mr PERRETT: That is exactly what this legislation is about. If those opposite had the foresight to look through this legislation they would see that that is what they are advocating. The Labor Party is the party of jobs, jobs for everybody and jobs that are sustainable, not short-term jobs. Let us be realistic about this. We have seen a few things take place. For a start, the environment minister has said to every state: 'You make decisions about the environment. We trust you.' That will lead to a potted patchwork approach to decision making.
Mr Whiteley: That is not what he said.
Mr PERRETT: The legislation has already been agreed at COAG. The environment ministers in the states will now make decisions about projects. And we have seen it in Queensland and I am particularly worried about the Queensland government. Before the election—back in March last year—they hardly said anything about the environment; in fact, they even put out a letter to the environment groups saying: 'You can trust us. We will do the right thing by you.' Then after the election—and I mean the morning after the election—the first statement made by the Deputy Premier elect, Jeff Seeney, was not a visionary statement about what Queensland will look like in 30 years time. No, the first thing that he said was, 'The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is too big.' That is what a Queensland Deputy Premier said the morning after the election. There was no mention of that before the election, but that was the first thing that he said afterwards. I am a big believer in people carrying out after the election what they promise before an election.
The reality is that the Premier of Queensland, in an environment in which income is constrained, is likely to be blind when it comes to mining approvals. If they are going to effectively be told, 'You don't have to pay attention to the approved conservation advice,' that is going to completely tip the balance between sustainable mining and a sustainable environment. That is going to tilt it too far in favour of mining companies.
As I said, the Labor Party has a strong presence in the mining industries. We take notice of the jobs in the mining industry. But it must be a balanced and sustainable industry. We need to remember—and anyone from Tasmania would know this—what happens when you have unchecked mining and when mining companies do not have an obligation to consider the environment before they put a shovel in the ground. That can be a recipe for disaster.
These amendments are important. They need to be seen in the context of the planet overall, because that is fundamentally what those opposite do not get. Obviously, the prism through which we should consider things is our approaches to putting a price on carbon. We understand that it is a cost to people and that it means that they have to readjust. We understand that it involves them putting their hand in their wallets or changing their lifestyles. Why do we ask them to do this, something that is tough to retail to people at the polling booth? The reason that we do it is because we care about the future. Unless we have the capacity to look our children in the eye and say, 'I am more important than you'—and that is something that I cannot do to my four-year old and my eight-year old—we need to get this right. The people sitting on green seats now need to get it right; the people sitting on red seats over in that other place need to get it right. History will judge us harshly for how we approach the future of the globe.
Australians put their trust in the Abbott government to do what is best for our nation. Obviously, I did not agree with their policies. But they continue to make misleading and destructive statements and now some of those opposite have gotten into groupthink so much that they have started to convince themselves that it is the actual truth. The carbon price legislation is a classic example.
In my home state of Queensland, environmental protection and the conservation of biodiversity is exceptionally important. We are a very diverse state. We have deserts, rainforests and mulga; we even have Antarctic beach. We have the biggest sand island in the world, Fraser Island. Ironically, that became protected through the actions of Campbell Newman's dad when he was environment minister under Malcolm Fraser. Queensland is incredibly diverse, but we also have these incredible resources that can create the jobs and the exports that will keep people employed for the next 30, 50, 100 or 200 years. We want to see our economy grow and prosper but we cannot do so by sacrificing our environment. That way madness lies. If you look at China, you can see what happens if you have unchecked development with people not considering the environment. That can create riots and health problems and the like.
Queensland had a tourism campaign with the slogan, 'Beautiful one day, perfect the next.' That is something that we need to consider. Yet in the last couple of weeks I have seen the Queensland government talk about mining and exporting uranium. I even heard the processing of uranium floated the other day. There was no mention of it during the election. In fact, when I raised this during my election campaign in September there was a strong response from my opponent saying, 'No, that's a fear campaign; there is nothing like that being considered.'
The reality is that we need to look at uranium and nuclear power stations not just through the prism of Fukushima and how things can go wrong or Kakadu, where we saw some problems over the weekend. We need to consider what it would mean to that brand of, 'Beautiful one day, perfect the next,' if you have barrels of yellowcake going through the Great Barrier Reef or, if they decide not to go through the Great Barrier Reef, up through the Northern Territory to the accredited port or down to South Australia. If they go through South Australia, that would mean that they would be trucking it through my home town of St George. I know the current member for New England has deserted St George, but I would love to have that conversation in the pubs in St George: 'We've got some yellowcake coming through here and going down those country roads.' I believe you have to get the balance right. Surely listening to the conservation advice provided to a mining company is a logical pre-step to any big mining operation.
I campaigned about marine parks at the end of the 43rd parliament, when we had votes on the marine parks that Labor had created—a system of marine parks that are the envy of the world; a system of marine parks such that we see people come to Australia to learn what we have done. But, sadly, those opposite in the 43rd parliament voted against that—we only won the continuation by one vote. I am sure the member for Melbourne would remember that one vote with which we won. In fact, we even saw the member for Wentworth vote against the park that he had created when he was the environment minister! That was the political power play that we saw in the 43rd parliament.
The reality is this bill is nobbling an environment minister's ability to make decisions about mining projects. As I said, all power to his arm when it comes to protecting turtles and dugongs—although I think there could have been greater consultation with Indigenous groups around Queensland, and that that clearly illustrates why this is a stalking horse rather than a fair dinkum approach to looking after those species.
UNESCO's World Heritage committee has had a look at our reef and assessed it as being in danger—already under threat. We have mining projects set to come online in Queensland over the next few years. There are pressures coming from the miners in terms of the suggestion that they put sludge out into the reef. I have been going to North Queensland for about 25 years. When you see the changes you can see that there are challenges for the reef, challenges for the tourism industry and the nearly 60,000 jobs that hang off the biggest living organism in the world. We need to get the balance right. Those opposite are not doing that.
There was a time, when it came to the environment, when Australia was a world leader. We saw that with our marine park proposal under former Minister Burke in the Labor government. We have a history of punching above our weight as a middle power. This step is a retrograde step. This step takes us back to the bad old days that I remember, with Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland, where the white shoes were out from under the desk wandering around dictating how things were done.
Ironically, mining companies have moved on. They have world's best practice and they should be recognised for such. If the project is so dodgy that it cannot even get an approved conservation advice then perhaps we should not be doing it. We need to be sensible when it comes to the environment and jobs. (Time expired)
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:18): The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 pulls in two different directions. On the one hand it is taking away part of the legal requirement that applies to environmental approvals processes involving the Commonwealth minister, and on the other it is putting in place what are said to be greater protections for some particular species. I have to say that it is consistent with what we have seen from a range of coalition state governments that have been elected in Australia in recent years. We are seeing here, in this first piece of environmental legislation from the new coalition government at the federal level, a taking away of protections of the environment.
The Minister for the Environment can seek to dress up what is occurring in this bill however he likes—and sought to do so, in fact, in his second reading speech—but what is actually occurring is the taking away of legal protection that is presently there for the environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. That legal protection requires the Commonwealth minister, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, to take into account conservation advice. The minister would have it that that conservation advice is still going to be taken into account but then says that what this act does is makes sure that no decision taken by the minister that fails to take into account that conservation advice will be invalid. In the next breath he would have this parliament and the people of Australia believe that that is not a lessening of environmental control.
Anybody at all, whether or not they have any legal expertise, can immediately see that if you take away the right to go to a court and have a decision by a Commonwealth minister declared invalid then the force of a legal requirement on a Commonwealth minister to take into account conservation advice is a great deal less than if the capacity exists to go to a court or tribunal and point correctly to the fact that a minister has not taken conservation advice into account properly and for that decision to be declared invalid.
I am not sure what the minister thinks is going to be the force of this particular part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act if this bill passes the House and passes the Senate, but it is pretty clear to us that it will greatly lessen the force of the environmental approvals process as it presently stands. Make no mistake: this bill lessens the force of Commonwealth environmental law. It weakens Commonwealth environmental law. And, as I said at the outset, it is consistent, regrettably, with what we have come to see so often from the conservative parties when they get to power either at the state or the Commonwealth level. At the state level, in my home state of Victoria we saw as almost the first act of the newly elected Baillieu government the reintroduction of cattle to the alpine regions of Victoria against all the known science and all the known research, fulfilling a promise that had been made to their supporters in the Mountain Cattlemen's Association of Victoria. And they persisted for some months with the pretence that there was some actual scientific basis for this proposed returning of cattle to the high country. It needed the then minister for the environment, Tony Burke, to step in before that short-lived attempt to put back the clock, in an environmental sense, was stopped in Victoria.
It is important to keep the context of the cattle in the high country in mind. There have been no cattle in the high country on the New South Wales side of the Victoria-New South Wales border since the mid-1960s. But, regrettably, cattle continued to persist in the alpine regions of Victoria right into the early 2000s, when the then Labor government was able to bring that particular activity to an end. It is of course an activity that has no environmental basis. It has been very clearly established for many years that there is tremendous environmental harm, in fact, flowing from grazing cattle in the high country. Tony Burke said at the time, somewhat memorably, that to put cattle into the Alpine National Park was to make a national park into a farm—which of course it is not. But it is emblematic of the attitudes the conservative parties take to environmental protection. They would far prefer to pander to commercial interests, to ignore the science and to ignore environmental advice than to properly protect the environment.
Regrettably, we are seeing again in Victoria in recent weeks talk by the Napthine government about putting cattle into the high country—again, on the pretence of some kind of trial, when, as I said, all the known science has been completely clear now for many years. I fear, given the other kinds of measures that this environment minister and this new federal government have been discussing in terms of preparation to hand back environmental assessment and approval powers to states, that this small piece of legislation is just the precursor to what will be a wholesale attack on environmental regulation and environmental protection in this country. You would have to say that nothing about any of the actions of this new government in relation to environmental matters—in its still less than 100 days of government since the election—gives the people of Australia the slightest confidence that this government is to be trusted on environmental matters. Certainly they are not a government that can in any way be trusted to keep their promises. They are not a government that can in any way be trusted to be the government they said they were going to be before the election. And they are certainly not a government that can be trusted to govern with anything like orderliness or deliberation. Rather, we see, staggering from day to day, decisions made on the run. And of course that is the antithesis of the kind of regulation and governmental activity that you need in the environmental area, where, as has often been said, developers—people wanting to take commercial advantage and people wanting to exploit natural resources—need to win only once, because then the development is underway and the project is up and running.
People seeking to protect the environment—and governments, when they seek to protect the environment—need to win every time in order to ensure that the environment is protected. Sometimes that will mean some considered deliberation. It will mean taking your time, looking at the science, taking into account conservation advice, which is the basis of this bill, and taking the time to make sure that the conservation advice has been considered properly. Sometimes it will mean taking the time to ensure that the environmental effects have been properly considered before rushing to make a decision. What this bill does is take away the consequence that would flow if the conservation advice were not properly taken account of.
Somewhat extraordinarily, in the second reading speech the minister actually referred to a recent Federal Court decision—Tarkine National Coalition Incorporated v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, which was earlier this year. The Federal Court found that an approval in relation to the Tarkine Forest was invalid because the then minister had not had proper regard to relevant approved conservation advice. The response of this government, far from being to ensure that, in future, proper regard is given to all conservation advice, and far from being to beef up the processes that apply to the obtaining and consideration of conservation advice, has been to rip up the rule book, to take away the legal consequence that has attached up until now—and that should continue to attach—to failing to take into account conservation advice in this way.
It is, as I said earlier, a weakening of environmental laws, just when this government is proposing to hand over to the states a large part of environmental assessment and approval powers. I have given only the single example of cattle in the high country in relation to the conduct of this present state Liberal government, but one could cite a whole range of other examples. The Newman government, since coming to office not all that long ago, has in almost all its decisions sought to put development ahead of the environment. The Newman government certainly cannot be trusted to protect our national heritage, in particular—and the member for Moreton, who spoke before me and who is a Queenslander, spoke eloquently about this—the threat posed to the Great Barrier Reef by the actions of the Newman government. Australia is a signatory to a whole range of environmental treaties. They include the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. All of these conventions, and Australia's adherence to them, are potentially called into question by the legislative change to the approvals processes which is proposed by this bill. It is regrettable that, as almost its first piece of environmental legislation—because one can hardly count the so-called repeal of the carbon tax set of legislation as environmental legislation—this government has sought to bring forward a decision which takes away the force of the existing provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
I hasten to say that in this bill the government is also bringing forward provisions that protect turtles and dugongs. For many years it has been very well known that marine turtles and dugongs are impacted by a range of enduring threats, including habitat loss, poor water quality, being part of so-called bycatch, poaching, marine debris and boat strike. In government, as a matter of resourcing, as a matter of departmental organisation and as a matter of particular programs, Labor made addressing these issues effectively a very high priority. All of the work that was put in train by the Labor government continues in close association with state and territory governments, with traditional owners in the north of Australia and with other groups with an interest such as commercial fishers.
This law is one which we support because it is a continuation, with some additional protections, of a range of programs that we put in place while in government. In particular, it is worth noting that the former Labor government invested some $7 million in Indigenous self-management, because that is the very best way to ensure that the sustainable and appropriate management of dugongs and turtles continues. Critically, the approach that we took in government included leadership and advice on the take of marine turtles and dugongs, developing community based sea country management plans and the support of traditional owner involvement in the sustainable use of marine resources and in compliance training.
We have also supported Indigenous ranger teams to remove ghost nets. These are lost or abandoned nets which impact on turtle and dugong populations. As with all of our environmental work while in government, our approach was based on our respect for the customs and traditions of Indigenous Australians and their right, as traditional owners under the Native Title Act, to hunt native species for personal, domestic, non-commercial or communal needs. So we do support a balanced approach. (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:33): This is an astounding bill. It says that, if you are the Minister for the Environment and someone gives you some advice that something needs to happen to protect a threatened species, you are allowed to ignore them. If a mining company comes in and says, perhaps, 'We want to develop here, right in the middle of a national park,' and someone says, 'You can't do that in that way, because that might affect a threatened species,' this bill says that the minister can completely ignore that advice and side with the mining company. It also means that if you go to court to challenge it by saying that, 'No, look, hang on, there is expert advice that the Tasmanian devil—'or perhaps a species up on the Great Barrier Reef—'is going to be threatened by this and potentially made extinct and wiped off the face of this earth,' there is nothing the court can do about it because the minister is able to hide behind their decision and say, 'No, we've changed the law to say that we can ignore the best conservation advice available in this country.'
That is an astounding proposition to come from someone who says he is the Minister for the Environment. If you were the Minister for the Environment, presumably you would craft laws in this country that gave the environment the maximum possible protection. Instead, these laws are being rewritten by, essentially, mining companies—and that is, ultimately, what this bill is. A couple of weeks before Christmas, this is a nicely wrapped up gift to some of Australia's and the world's biggest companies, at the expense of the environment and at the expense of species that are threatened. It is this parliament's job to stand up for species and the environment that otherwise would not have a voice. Unless we put into law proper protections for the species that we share this planet with, we are going to see a 'let it rip' mentality. Chop it down, dig it up, ship it off—that is the limit of the government's vision for the country.
Our environment laws at the moment are not actually that strong and are nowhere near as strong as they should be. It is astounding that, in the first few sitting weeks of parliament, before the end of the year, the first thing that the government wants to do is weaken them even further so that the minister for the environment does not even have to listen to advice about what it would take to protect threatened species. It is a very cynical attempt to overcome a decision that has been referred to before in the debate, where the previous minister for the environment gave the go-ahead to a mine in a forest in Tasmania without having any regard to advice that said, 'This will impact on the Tasmanian devils in a way that potentially would breach your obligations,' and was found by the court to have not followed the act. This law is now attempting not to strengthen our processes to make sure we are never found in breach of those obligations again but to change the law so that such court cases never happen again—so that, if you ignore a piece of advice about conservation, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
It is very clear why this is happening. We heard why from a couple of speakers before. It is because the country is now open for business, apparently. That does not just include our cities and our rural areas; it includes our parks, too. It seems our parks are now open for business. This is a piece of legislation that the government wants to get through by the end of the year so that it does not even have to listen to advice about how we can protect some of our threatened species in the future. We have seen, in my state of Victoria, what that means in practice. It means, for example, cattle being allowed to graze in Alpine National Park areas—in defiance of the science and in defiance of common sense—so that we can turn the park into a paddock, so that cows can have a free feed. It does not matter what happens to threatened species or the environment!
There is a second part to the bill, which is to increase penalties for those who harm or kill turtles or dugongs. That is something that many people from across the political spectrum, including in this chamber, have been raising as an issue for some time. But, again, the cynicism of this government knows no bounds. At the same time as they modestly increase penalties in this law, they are enthusiastically rolling out the red carpet for the big coal and gas port developments on the reef's coast, developments that pose huge risks to the Great Barrier Reef's dugong and turtle populations. Dredging and dumping of dredge spoil offshore destroys the sea grass where the turtles and dugongs live and feed.
The true test of this minister's commitment to the dugong and turtle populations in the Great Barrier Reef falls due on Friday the 13th. That is when the minister will decide whether or not to approve the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion. If he approves it, that will facilitate Abbot Point becoming the biggest coal port in the Southern Hemisphere, facilitating the export of vast amounts of climate-destroying Galilee coal from Queensland. It also involves—which is relevant to this debate—dredging and dumping three million cubic metres of dredge spoil offshore in the reef's waters. That is going to contribute to destroying turtle and dugong habitats. We will see how much the minister really cares about the dugongs and turtles when it comes to the Abbot Point development.
In the few minutes I have left I will foreshadow some amendments that we will be moving in the detail stage. Firstly, we will move to strike out schedule 1 of the bill, because this schedule as it is currently drafted will allow the government to just ignore science and just ignore advice from experts in this country about how to protect the environment. That is anathema to good governance—having no requirement that, in the environment protection legislation of this country, you have to even listen to advice about how to protect the environment. That is anathema to good governance and it must go.
The second amendment that we will move does something fairly straightforward. It will strengthen our national environment laws to ensure that all major decisions about projects that will significantly harm Australia's most precious places and wildlife must be made by our national environment minister. This is crucial. We have seen state governments in operation. We have seen their willingness to trash the environment for the sake of a dollar. For that reason, over time we have developed national environmental protection laws. Those laws which allow the national government to step in and override state governments have meant that, for example, we have not seen dams built in Tasmania—as I am sure many people here know.
What is on the cards with this government—and it was flagged under the previous government—and what this amendment will stop is the federal government saying to the state governments: 'Look, you decide. We will hand over to you, essentially, the responsibility for making a decision about whether or not national environment laws are complied with.' We have seen this government act at the behest of some of the country's and the world's biggest mining and resource companies, and sign MOUs with the New South Wales and Queensland governments to kick-start the process, to essentially hand to Premiers Newman and O'Farrell the federal environment minister's powers. It is rumoured that, at the upcoming COAG meeting, we are going to see more of that. If this proceeds, the federal government will have no power to step in and stop, or even place conditions on, developments that are likely to have a significant impact on some of our most precious national icons. It would mean the federal government could protect neither World Heritage areas from big mines nor threatened species from being sent to extinction by state governments, who would approve—and we have seen them do this—major developments in key habitat.
As I said, if this procedure had been in place in the past, we could not have stopped the Franklin from being dammed. If it were in place, we would not be able to stop oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef. We need to stop the Abbott government from creating essentially a one-stop shop for business to sell out our environment. This would be a major step backwards. It would overturn 30 years of gradually increased, and greatly needed, Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection. I do not want to see Premier Napthine in sole control of whether or not to put cows in the Alpine National Park or Campbell Newman in sole control of the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef. That is what is likely to happen unless the amendments that we are going to move are passed. Likewise, unless this House supports the amendments that the Greens are going to move, we will have Barry O'Farrell in sole control or whether or not to send koalas there to extinction. I am pleased to hear the noises from the Labor Party that, although they initially floated this idea, they now understand what it would mean. They understand that the Hawke legacy is fundamentally under threat from this government and, unless we support—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Melbourne will have leave to continue his remarks should he so wish.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Human Rights Day
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:45): On 10 December 1950, the United Nations General Assembly, presided over by Australia's then foreign affairs minister, Doc Evatt, as president, proclaimed 10 December as Human Rights Day to bring to the attention of the peoples of the world the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.
It is pertinent to reflect on Human Rights Day tomorrow as we mourn the passing of Nelson Mandela, who devoted his life to the promotion of human rights, to the elimination of racial discrimination and to the affirming of every human being's right to live with dignity. I will speak further about Nelson Mandela in the condolence motion, but I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the wonderful Irish poet and Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney, who passed away on 30 August this year. On the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2008, Seamus wrote a beautiful essay called 'The redress of poetry', in which he observed that, in an unbalanced society, the UDHR adds weight to the lighter side of the scale and contributes to the maintenance of equilibrium—never entirely achieved—between the rights and the wrongs.
I am proud of the human rights achievements of the former Labor government that have contributed to the lighter side of the scale, including, just to name a few, establishing the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, establishing the National Children's Commissioner, legislation to prevent the reintroduction of the death penalty, removing discrimination against same-sex couples in more than 80 Commonwealth laws, endorsing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocol. (Time expired)
Macarthur Electorate: Mrs Ina Cameron
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:46): I rise today to pay tribute to one of Camden's oldest and most loved residents, Ina Cameron, who passed away on 13 November after a short illness, aged 105—yes, 105. Mrs Cameron was well known in my community. She and her husband, Gordon, ran menswear stores in Camden and Campbelltown after moving to Camden in 1946. Since then, she has worked in the canteen at the Inglis saleyards, raising money for the Red Cross and the hospital auxiliary. She was a member of the Torchbearers for Legacy, the Country Women's Association and the Church of England Women's Guild at St Mark's Church. Mrs Cameron also worked as a Pink Lady at Carrington for many years. She was an enthusiastic volunteer and a member of a huge number of community groups and organisations, who will sorely miss her.
The community farewelled Mrs Cameron with a service at St Paul's Church in Cobbitty. Her niece, Camden councillor Eva Campbell, has remembered her aunt as a woman of 'quiet understated elegance'. She said Mrs Cameron was friendly and her whole life revolved around her family and friends and the community.
I met Mrs Cameron a couple of years ago when I was volunteering for the day with Camden Meals on Wheels. Mrs Cameron was a delight to spend time with. She was very kind and witty and had many stories to tell of years gone by in the Camden area. She was very politically astute and was known as Australia's oldest swinging voter, who had selected the winner of every state and federal election she had voted in. She was a great asset to our community and will be dearly missed by all those who knew her. She was truly a wonderful woman, loved and cherished by all. Rest in peace, Ina. You will be missed.
Gorton Electorate: Melton City Council Disability Action Plan
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (13:48): Melton City Council launched the Melton City Council Disability Action Plan at WestWaters hotel last Thursday. The Melton City Council Disability Action Plan 2013-17 strengthens the voice of people with a disability and acknowledges and supports the vital role that families and carers play in the municipality. This plan recognises all people with a disability, including children, young people and adults with a sensory, physical or neurological impairment, acquired brain injury or mental illness.
My electorate staff managed to get along to that event on my behalf, including Paya Sumuni, an intern currently undertaking a placement at my office. Paya reported that it was an inspiring and enriching event and, therefore, it was very important that I be represented. The council also expressed its gratitude for the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, initiated by the Gillard government.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Mayor of the City of Melton, Councillor Bob Turner; former mayor Kathy Majdlik; and the Melton City Council CEO, Kel Tori. They really helped put this together with the community groups and I congratulate everyone who had a hand in developing the City of Melton Disability Action Plan, a very important initiative in my electorate.
Lyons Electorate: Mr Col Bailey
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (13:49): Col Bailey has spent his life chasing the legendary Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine, in the bush around the Derwent Valley. Col is 76 years old and comes from New Norfolk in the electorate of Lyons. He says the second time he saw a Tasmanian tiger was in 1995. He was 'taking a leak in the bush'. The north-east Tasmanian country newspaper the Valley and East Coast Voice republished excerpts from the Examiner journalist Alex Druce's story:
'It shot out of some ferns behind me —I thought it was a cattle dog at first,' he said.
'But then I was face-to-face with the darn thing.'
The encounter is one of the dramatic highlights of Mr Bailey's new memoir, The Shadow of the Thylacine, due to be released this month.
Mr Bailey said that an old bushman told him years ago exactly which part of the Weld Valley in southern Tasmania he would find tigers, or thylacines. He says that he has no doubt that the creatures are still out there. He says that he last heard a tiger's call in 2008 while travelling along Tasmania's west coast. Col does not often talk about the tiger because he fears what people would do if it were found. I recommend Col's memoirs to anyone interested in knowing more about the legendary Tasmanian thylacine.
Calwell Electorate: Hume Valley Soccer Club
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (13:51): I want to congratulate the Hume Valley Soccer Club in my electorate of Calwell for completing a very successful 2013 soccer season which saw the club achieve great success in winning the premier league of the Victorian Amateur Football Association for the 2013 season. The competition this season involved 12 teams competing in what was a very tough and highly skilled contest. Hume Valley defeated Moreland United to take the premiership title.
In addition to that great success, the Hume Valley Soccer Club won the Assyrian Soccer Championship for 2103 in Sydney. It is the first time in 14 years that a team from Victoria, in this case the Hume Valley Soccer Club from my electorate, won the Assyrian cup in Sydney. It is always great to see Melbourne defeat Sydney in some form or another.
These landmark victories were celebrated at a function on 22 November at Brookwood Receptions. It was hosted by members of the Australian Chaldean Federation and the Chaldean and Assyrian community.
I want to congratulate the club president, Mr Wadie Shmon, and the trainer, Zeyad Matti. They have done a great job. I also want to congratulate all the team members, their supporters and, indeed, the community itself. It takes a lot of heart and effort to keep clubs like this successful.
The Iraqi-Chaldean community is an emerging community in my electorate made up mainly of migrants who have settled here under the refugee and humanitarian program. (Time expired)
Diabetes
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:52): On Friday, 29 November, I had the great honour of representing the Prime Minister at the Baker IDI, at the Alfred Hospital, to launch the collaboration between the Fred Hollows Foundation and the International Diabetes Federation. Since 1992 the Fred Hollows Foundation has specialised in blindness prevention and treatment in Third World communities around the world. The number of people who they have helped is simply astounding. They have treated 7.6 million people for trachoma and, in 2012, they helped over eight million people with eye related illnesses. The International Diabetes Federation is an umbrella organisation for over 200 national diabetes associations in more than 160 countries. It represents the interests of the growing number of people with diabetes and those at risk. The partnership between these two organisations will mark the first time that the Fred Hollows Foundation will scan, detect and treat diabetes related blindness. The announcement was made to coincide with the World Diabetes Congress, which was held last week between 2 December and 6 December at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre.
I am delighted to also report to the House that the government has announced that Professor Paul Zimmet and the Hon. Judi Moylan will co-chair the advisory group to implement the national strategy for diabetes, which is the first of its kind in this country. I would like to congratulate everyone involved in this wonderful joint initiative between the Fred Hollows Foundation and the International Diabetes Federation. (Time expired)
Australian Vietnamese Women's Association
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:54): I rise to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of the Australian Vietnamese Women's Association. The AVWA aims to help create a harmonious society in which everyone, irrespective of age, gender, skills, abilities, ethnicity and religion, feels valued and is motivated and empowered to contribute to Australian society.
The AVWA was founded by Mrs Cam Nguyen, the current CEO, when she invited 16 women to attend the inaugural meeting on 15 January 1983. The current President of the AVWA, Thanh-Kham Tran-Dang, has also been deeply involved with the organisation since its foundation. The Australian Vietnamese Women's Association assists with the settlement of Vietnamese-speaking refugees and migrants in Victoria and provides material aid, practical assistance, emotional support and counselling.
On 1 March this year, I was able to attend the 30th AGM of this group. Over 250 people were able to attend the event and were treated to a special singing performance from members of the group. As we all know, a 30th wedding anniversary is known as a pearl anniversary. After 30 years of hard work, Cam and Kham are surely pearls of the Victorian Vietnamese community. They are a model for us all and great contributors to my electorate of Gellibrand and the state of Victoria.
Apprentice of the Year Awards
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:55): I am delighted to rise today to congratulate Broome carpentry and joinery apprentice Jonathan Falconer, from my electorate of Durack, for winning the Regional Apprentice of the Year Award. Jonathan's achievement was recognised at the recent Master Builders Apprentice of the Year Awards in Perth. The winner was determined from the best apprentices in the north-west, mid-west, south-west, Great Southern and Goldfields-Esperance regions—so this was a significant achievement. Awards such as these highlight the skills and training of our apprentices, who are so vital to Australian businesses and employers. This is not the first time an apprentice from the Kimberley region has won this award, with Jonathan now being the third in the last eight years.
Apprenticeships and trainee programs are of crucial and continuing importance to the Australian economy, especially the small business sector. This industry faces a range of challenges, including poor completion rates, so it is important to provide both employer and employee incentives to continue this pathway to skilled employment. This is therefore a tribute to our regional building industry and traineeship programs, particularly in the Kimberley region, who work collaboratively to produce such standout tradesmen as Jonathan. Well done, Jonathan Falconer.
Centenary of Anzac
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:56): I am pleased to update the House today on the progress of the Centenary of Anzac grants in my electorate of Richmond. The funding of $125,000 per electorate rightly commemorates the service and sacrifice of Australian service men and women in the First World War. I am delighted to report that the Richmond committee has now been convened and is working hard on local commemorations. The committee is chaired by Dr John Griffin of the Tweed Heads and Coolangatta RSL sub-branch and attended by the following representatives: from Byron Bay RSL, Violet Hill; from Murwillumbah RSL, Derek Sims; from Mullumbimby RSL, Paul Smith; from Kingscliff RSL, Hugh Aitken; and from the Legacy Far North Coast Branch, Kevin Sharpley.
The local RSLs will be a focal point to assist the community in their applications. These applications will then be referred to the committee for recommendation to the minister. The committee's initial discussion focused on the many ways in which to support local community groups with ideas and examples of eligible activities under the program. The committee noted the centenary provided opportunities for Australians of all ages to work together to mark the centenary through local organisations. The committee will also be encouraging and working alongside our local schools to create projects to help ensure the Anzac legacy continues to be handed down to younger generations.
It was a great honour for me to convene the inaugural meeting of the Richmond Anzac Centenary committee and I look forward to continuing to work alongside this wonderful committee group, and the community as well, as together we remember the service and sacrifice of so many.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Councils
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (13:58): Community spirit is alive and well in the seat of Hindmarsh. Recently I had the pleasure of attending the Glenelg Christmas pageant with my young family. The Holdfast Bay Council, as well as other community organisations, do a great job with this event every year. The Camden Scout Group, Baden Pattinson Kindergarten and the Glenelg Football Club were just three of the many community groups and organisations who participated. Naturally the streets were lined with young children and their families enjoying the event.
While on the work of councils, I want to congratulate the Mayor of the City of Marion, Dr Felicity-ann Lewis, who was recently named as South Australia's Australian of the Year for 2014. Dr Lewis is also the President of the Australian Local Government Association and has served as the mayor of Marion for nearly 14 years.
It is vitally important for all levels of government to work together to improve our local communities, and I look forward to working with the mayors and the chief executives of the councils in my electorate. Whether it be the Tennyson Dunes, the River Torrens or the fine beaches in Hindmarsh, it is the responsibility of all of us to maintain our environment.
Parramatta Electorate: Granville Boys High School
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:59): In the brief time I have available I would like to congratulate four young men from Granville Boys High School, Hamza Taha, Osama Chaar, Mouhamed Ibrahim and Omar Elrich, all 16 years old, who have made it as finalists in Addapt, Australia's first ever social purpose app development program specifically for young people. They have developed an app for crime prevention. I wish them well in the finals. Go, Granville Boys!
The SPEAKER: It being two o'clock, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
CONDOLENCES
Mandela, Mr Rolihlahla (Nelson) Dalibhunga, AC
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:00): I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 5 December 2013, of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela AC, former President of the Republic of South Africa, and place on record its acknowledgement of his role in the development of the modern South African nation and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Our parliament pauses today to mark the loss of a great man: a freedom fighter who became a national healer, a prisoner who became a president. Very few leaders in human history have embodied their cause in the way that Nelson Mandela represented a free and equal South Africa. For the 27 years he spent in prison he was the symbol of all that was wrong with apartheid. Today, we use words like racism quite often, but no-one can comprehend the horror and injustice of what apartheid was in a bygone South Africa.
He was imprisoned for taking action against the injustice and prejudice that infiltrated every aspect of his people's lives. Lesser men, when deprived of the energy of their supporters and the exhilaration of the struggle, would have given up the fight in the long and lonely days of their incarceration. Lesser men would have allowed their passion for justice to spill over into a desire for vengeance. In the words of the poem Invictus, of which Mandela was so fond, he remained true, 'bloody, but unbowed', and the 'menace of the years' found him unafraid. He was confident that the tide of history would turn, and turn it did.
As global awareness of the evil of apartheid spread and the international community started to take action against South Africa, Mandela became a beacon of hope, a symbol of what the new South Africa could be: a country were every man, woman and child would be equal under the law; a place where everyone could aspire to high office and be entitled to basic dignity; a nation where freedom was indivisible and a universal right.
Because of Mandela's greatness, South Africa was reborn in a spirit of reconciliation, not retribution. As president he worked to bind up the nation's wounds, to bring truth and healing through the power of his example. He saw the dismantling of apartheid as an act of mutual liberation, a change that conferred new freedom and dignity to the oppressed and the oppressor alike. He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Frederik Willem de Klerk, in acknowledgement that his was a struggle to achieve peace.
Now that he is gone, and the tributes are pouring in from across the globe, it is worth remembering that Mandela always espoused modesty and humility. He never wanted to be an icon or a saint. He was, in his own words, just a sinner who kept on trying. Paradoxically, his humility only added to his greatness.
Few of us in public life ever try to encourage criticism, even if our actions might sometimes invite it. But whenever Mandela tried to acknowledge his flaws or mistakes—and like all people he had some—he only brought his qualities and achievements into sharper relief. This as much as anything reveals the measure of the man.
In the days ahead the world will mourn the death of Nelson Mandela, but let us also give thanks for his life. I have noticed in the film and pictures coming from South Africa how much the people are celebrating as well as grieving. We will never see another Nelson Mandela, but in the South Africa he built and the world he leaves behind his example lives on as an inspiration to us all. Now that his long walk to freedom is at its end, may he rest in peace.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): How wonderful it is to hear those words from the Acting Prime Minister. I second the motion. There is a story from Robben Island which speaks to the power of words and art to inspire and sustain the human spirit. The story goes that the political prisoners used to secretly pass around a copy of Shakespeare's collected works, and on one occasion the men marked their favourite passages. Mandela chose one from Julius Caesar:
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.
It has come now for Nelson Mandela. We should be thankful that he lived, fought and led his country, but we mourn the fact that he has now passed from this world.
There was a news report a few nights ago where the presenter remarked that dawn was breaking in South Africa for the first time in 95 years without Nelson Mandela. There is something in that. Such an iconic figure can sometimes take on the stature of being permanent, but the nature of human history is that everything is fleeting: 'a mere brief passing moment in time and space', as Mandela put it. No longer do freedom fighters have the living and breathing Mandela to look to; he belongs to history now, the man who spent more than a quarter of his life—long, lonely, wasted years—imprisoned by a regime which he was prepared to give his life to bring down, only to preach reconciliation on his release.
The man who brought down apartheid without, in the end, a shot being fired now belongs to an echelon reserved for leaders like Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, who first said those words that Mandela repeated on his release: 'Free at last.' The names of these indomitable fighters for the expression and realisation of human dignity will always inspire millions to think, to act and to fight.
We are all bound by the times we live in. There has been some commentary in the last few days pointing out that Mandela was no saint, as if that is a criticism. Of course, he was not. He was a political leader engaged in a bitter struggle, a political leader reacting to the unpredictability of human events and the grotesque nature of apartheid—or, in his own words, he was a product of the mire that his society was. It is one of those ironies of history which reveals the complexity of the human condition. Men and women created something as repressive as apartheid but the men and women of South Africa and around the world led by Mandela were part of the movement of millions which brought it down. The contradiction of all of this is that, while Mandela's struggle reveals complexity, it also has a perfect moral clarity. Dividing a country based on race and class is wrong. Denying a person his or her inherent rights based on the colour of their skin is wrong. Fighting racism is right, and uniting a troubled country through reconciliation and forgiveness is right.
We should never forget those millions who fought alongside Mandela. While they were lucky to have a leader of his stature, their struggle should never be forgotten. Mandela and his people's struggle was a touchstone for generations of progressive people around the globe. There would be people in this parliament today who can trace their political awakening to the anti-apartheid movement; it was formative for many of us. I am proud to be a member of a party which supported Mandela's struggle for the decades that he was in prison, and I am proud to be part of a labour movement of party activists and trade unionists which long supported sanctions as one of the fundamental ways the international community united to help bring down the apartheid regime.
There can hardly be a person who was of age in February 1990 who cannot recall the jolt of excitement as Mandela walked free and likewise the triumph of his 1994 election. We were lucky to share Mandela's times. He said that to overthrow oppression has been sanctioned by humanity and is the highest aspiration of every man. The world is better because he lived and fought. Like the valiant in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, he has now come to the necessary end, which we all will taste.
Mandela once remarked that the names of only a very few people are remembered beyond their lives. He will be one of those people. Australia mourns his end but gives thanks for his life.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House and those in the gallery.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:11): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:11): As the House would be aware, the Prime Minister will be absent from question time as he attends the memorial service for Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg. I will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Investment will be absent from question time until Thursday, while he participates in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in Singapore. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Automotive Industry
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. What is the future of car manufacturing in Australia if the government goes ahead with his half a billion dollar cut to the car industry?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:12): The future of the car industry is in the hands of the car industry.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: It is in the hands of the car industry in the same way that it was under Labor. It was February 2008, from memory, when Mitsubishi closed and Labor was in government. It was Ford that announced that it was closing its Australian operation when Labor was in government. Is that a vacuum? Has that gone into the black hole of the six years that never existed? The fact is that, from 2015 onwards, we have committed $1 billion to help the car industry. But, ultimately, the thing that is most going to help the Australian motor vehicle industry is Australians buying their cars. That is what happens. It is about buying Australian cars. I would say to the members opposite: 'Please don't engage in hypocrisy on this. Don't be A-grade hypocrites when it comes to the motor vehicle industry.'
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield has asked his question. The member for Wakefield is warned!
Mr HOCKEY: It was the Labor Party that introduced a fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles—a $1.8 billion hit, which the member for McMahon was so proud of before the election. The best way you can help the Australian motor vehicle industry is impose a $1.8 billion tax on it! That was the Labor way of thinking. Then the Labor Party said that they would have a green car fund and then they cut the green car fund—
A government member: Cash for clunkers.
Mr HOCKEY: I forgot cash for clunkers. That was another great initiative from the Labor Party. But the carbon tax itself adds to the cost of producing motor vehicles in Australia—a carbon tax manufacturers do not pay if the cars are built in Thailand or anywhere else. The Labor Party believes the best way you can help manufacturing in Australia is to tax it to death. That is the Labor Party way. I would say to the member for Wakefield: the Australian automotive industry survives today despite the Labor Party, and the best thing that could happen for the Australian motor vehicle industry today is for the Labor Party to help get rid of the carbon tax.
Carbon Pricing
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (14:15): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister, and I remind the Acting Prime Minister that Mackay, Proserpine and the Burdekin, in my electorate of Dawson, are some of the biggest sugar growing areas in Australia. What impact will the abolition of the carbon tax have on the cost of producing sugar and how will this improve job prospects in North Queensland?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:15): I thank the member for Dawson for his question. The sugar industry is certainly one of Australia's great agricultural industries. Last year, it exported about $1.4 billion worth of product to the world. We are the third largest exporter of sugar and, for that reason, the international competitiveness of the industry is absolutely critical. Australian sugar growers are the only ones in the world that are paying a carbon tax, the only ones in the world that have their cost base increased every day as a result of the carbon tax. Whether they are buying their water or their fuel, whether they are transporting their products to the market—whatever they do—there is a carbon tax built into the cost of their production. In spite of that load that the Labor Party has put on the industry, the industry has sought to grow its export markets around the world.
The news of the free trade agreement with Korea is particularly important to the Australian sugar industry. Korea is our No. 1 market for sugar exports. The lifting of that tariff immediately upon the implementation of that agreement will be a huge boost to the industry. But, as long as Labor defend their carbon tax, the industry will still have to bear a cost that its competitors anywhere else in the world do not have to bear. On top of that, unlike in other countries, the Labor government imposed the tax on the food-processing sector as well, and that includes, obviously, the crushing industry. It has to meet those sorts of costs as a result of Labor's carbon tax.
The sugar industry has done remarkably well, but it could do even better if Labor got out of the way and voted to get rid of the carbon tax. They have said they do not want it but they will not vote to take it out of the Australian equation. The best Christmas present that Labor could deliver to the sugar farmers of Australia would be to help to abolish the carbon tax and let them get on with building a profitable sugar industry.
Automotive Industry
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the government's intention to cut half a billion dollars of assistance from the Australian car industry and to the Prime Minister's statement on radio last Friday that there is no more money for Australia's auto industry. Minister, if the government has made up its mind, what is the point of the Productivity Commission inquiry?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:18): The incoming Australian government, as the Treasurer has just told the parliament, has put aside substantial amounts of financial support for the Australian car industry. There is still significant financial support available before 2015, when the second $1 billion that the Treasurer referred to kicks into action. We want a strong car industry in Australia. Holden has been very much a part of the Australian way of life for as long as all of us can remember, but Holden also needs to be up-front with its workers and tell them what its intentions are for the Australian car industry.
The review that we are undertaking will help to plot a future for the industry. It will endeavour to look at ways in which that industry can prosper in the future. But, certainly, it would help the car industry enormously if the carbon tax were to be abolished. By abolishing the carbon tax, you save about $400 on the construction costs of each vehicle, and that would really be something worthwhile.
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: that fact has been controverted by the car industry many times—
The SPEAKER: That is argument; that is not a point of order. I would remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to engage in debate when you are purporting to raise a point of order.
Mr TRUSS: If the Labor Party were serious about the objective of having a strong car industry in Australia, they would not have imposed a $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax on the industry. They would not be imposing a carbon tax. They would be getting on with the business of giving the industry the environment in which they can grow and prosper, and that is what this government will do.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I refer the Acting Prime Minister to standing order 104(a).
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business does not have a point of order. I call the Acting Prime Minister.
Mr TRUSS: I have finished the answer, Madam Speaker.
Carbon Pricing
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:20): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the statement of Origin Energy's managing director, Grant King, recently that the carbon tax is a 'dead weight' on the economy and, if not repealed by June 30, will mean additional costs to businesses and households. What impact will the abolition of the carbon tax have on the cost of producing energy? How will this reduce cost pressures for business and create jobs for the nation?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:20): It is a terrific question from the—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: He wrote it! It is a terrific question from the unforgettable member for Wannon; thank you. He cares about our economy and he recognises that, if we actually abolish the carbon tax, we will strengthen the Australian economy—because the previous government's own economic modelling showed that the carbon tax would increase inflation by 0.7 per cent in this year; it would reduce GNI, gross national income, by 0.8 per cent; and, after 10 years, the level of real wages would be 1.1 per cent lower across the country. It is a pretty significant impact.
Just about every business leader in Australia and a few around the world have said, 'This is just bad policy,' whether it be David Murray, the former head of the Future Fund; Jeanne Pratt, the head of Visy, who just opened a shiny new factory in China—very impressive; or Don Argus, former BHP boss. Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemicals—and he is on President Obama's manufacturing council, not necessarily something that is closely aligned with us—said:
A carbon price in isolation in the absence of an energy policy is nonsense.
Also there were John Hannagan from Rusal Australia; John Pegler from the Australian Coal Association; David Peever from Rio Tinto; Marius Kloppers, former head of BHP; Geoff Plummer, Chief Executive, OneSteel, who heavily criticised the carbon tax; the Business Council; David Byers from APIA; Stephen Cartwright from New South Wales Business Chamber; and, Christophe de Margerie, Chairman and Chief Executive, Total, who said:
The message is that climate change, which is a problem, which is a concern to all of us, cannot be solved by one or two countries even if they are huge countries. Just for Australia trying to sort it out is for me a little bit strange.
And it went on. The Labor Party said they were going to terminate it. Remember that? Before the election, they were going to terminate the carbon tax. Where have I heard that term 'terminate' before? I thought of Arnie. I did not realise that there had been five films in the Terminator series:No. 1 The Terminator, No. 2 Terminator: Judgment Day, No. 3 Terminator: Rise of the Machines, No. 4 Terminator Salvation and No. 5 'Terminator, the carbon taxbackflip'.
Automotive Industry
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Industry. Can the minister advise the House how many jobs in the automotive supply chain the government believes will be at risk if Holden leaves Australia?
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (14:24): I thank the member for his question but at this stage we are not working on the pretext that Holden is leaving the country; we are working on the pretext that the industry will continue. If the Labor Party were so concerned about the car industry's future, they would not have sat quietly by while Mitsubishi left the country, while Ford announced that they were leaving the country, while they introduced a $1.8 billion hit—
Ms Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order under 104(a): you do not find a more specific question than this. It is simply asking how many jobs would be affected and it deserves a decent answer.
The SPEAKER: The question was asked in the context of the car industry. The minister is relevant.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not address hypotheticals but I am addressing the issue of the car industry—and the Labor Party has a very poor record when it comes to the car industry. The reality is that those of us on this side are working to give the car industry a future. We have a purposeful, methodical, measured approach to assessing the future of the car industry in Australia. Those who sit opposite just want to politicise the issue; they just want to frighten people about how many jobs might be lost if the chicken crosses the road. We are working on a solution for the car industry and we will continue to do so.
Regional Australia
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:26): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Minister, during the election you made a commitment to replace Regional Development Australia by spending $200 million a year under the National Stronger Regions Program. The recent announcement that RDA round 5 projects will not be honoured has serious implications for the people of Wodonga-Wangaratta-Rutherglen and other beautiful places in regional Australia. Our communities urgently need infrastructure. When can we expect details of the National Stronger Regions Fund to be announced so that all rural communities can get to work and start planning their future? (Time expired)
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:26): I compliment the honourable member on her maiden question. It is important that we talk about how we can build better futures for people who live in regional Australia. This government has a very substantial commitment to delivering for regional communities. The honourable member made the obvious point that this government has decided not to honour Labor's election promises made in round 5 of the RDAF. These were promises made in the days leading up to the election and during the election campaign itself and, in some instances, never announced at all.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance and to misleading. The Acting Prime Minister knows full well that these were not election promises; these are commitments in the budget.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member is engaging in debate and that is not permitted.
Mr TRUSS: The honourable member said they were commitments in the budget. The expenditure was in the budget but certainly the income was not; it was coming out of the mining tax, which did not raise any money. So these were not only election promises; they were also unfunded election promises. The honourable member will, however, be aware that the coalition government did make a lot of substantial promises to the electorate of Indi and we will honour those promises. They were our election promises. We will be delivering the $50,000 for the CCTV cameras in the Alpine Shire, the $5 million for a cardiac catheterisation laboratory in Albury-Wodonga, $150,000 towards a feasibility study for the Bright hospital, $1.4 million for local roads, and a Green Army project in Lake Hume, the Murray River and the Kiewa River. They are just a few of the things we have committed to specifically in Indi. We will also be funding the round 3 RDAF project in the member's electorate, which was not contracted by the previous government.
Ms King: So you should. I signed them in April!
Mr TRUSS: It was announced but never contracted. We are anxious to work with people of goodwill to deliver better outcomes to those who live outside the capital cities and our own National Stronger Regions Program will continue that good work into the years ahead. I would expect that next year we will have details of how that program will be operational but in the interim there are around 250 election promises which we have made for specific projects in local regions, which we will be delivering to electorates like Indi and others around the country.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to this bill that shows that, following the introduction of the carbon tax, Central Engineering's electricity costs have increased at an estimated $3,000 a year. How will Central Engineering and other businesses benefit from the abolition of the carbon tax, and how will reducing the cost burden on the economy grow jobs?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:30): I understand the member for McPherson is concerned, as is her constituent from Central Engineering, about over-inflated electricity bills—about puffed-up electricity bills—and we are determined to do something about over-inflated electricity bills. Let me make this point: Central Engineering has been hit with a $3,000 impact—on the best advice that we have available—precisely because of the carbon tax, which those on the other side of the chamber say they are opposed to but which those on the other side continue to support through their votes and their actions.
But Central Engineering is not alone. Central Engineering is one of tens of thousands of small businesses around Australia affected by the carbon tax. The Australian Industry Group has noted that approximately 14½ per cent represents the average increase in energy costs as a result of the carbon tax for their manufacturing businesses.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr HUNT: It is great to hear from you! You wanted a zero carbon tax. Captain Zero, over there, is back. He wanted a zero carbon tax, but for six months. What a great achievement—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat, as will the Manager of Opposition Business. I remind the minister to refer to members by their proper titles.
Mr HUNT: I respect your admonition. Our good friend over there, the member for Grayndler, when he was vying to be the Leader of the Opposition, wanted a zero carbon tax for six months, when it would go straight back up to $38. That is the great deceit in this debate. The opposition want to change its name, but in every respect it is the same carbon tax with a different name. They took to the election a tax which, according to their own pre-election economic forecast, will hit $38 within five years.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will withdraw.
Mr HUNT: I want to repeat this: their tax, with a different name, would amount to $38 within five years. That is why the head of Origin Energy wants it gone. That is why the head of Alinta Energy says that they will pass through the entire reduction in electricity prices. That is why the head of AGL has also said that they will pass through all of the electricity costs. That is why the had of the ESAA—the Electricity Supply Association of Australia—has said that they will pass through all of the electricity costs as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax. That is why the head of the ACCC has said that what goes up can come down and will come down—in other words, over-inflated electricity bills will come down. So for Central Engineering there is relief in sight, and that relief will come when the Senate votes to repeal the carbon tax. In the meantime there is a go-slow in the Senate. Stop the go-slow, get out of the way and allow the carbon tax to be removed.
Automotive Industry
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:33): By question is to the Minister for Industry. I refer to his statement on 20 September that he would arm-wrestle the Treasurer on the future of the car industry. Does the government support the continued presence of Holden in Australia or not, and does the government accept that its half-billion-dollar cut to auto industry assistance will see Holden leave Australia?
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (14:33): I am so pleased to get a question from the opposition which is at least a little bit positive. Do we support Holden remaining in Australia? Absolutely. Are we doing something about it? Absolutely. What is the Labor Party doing? They have imposed a carbon tax, which they are now refusing to take off. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, that carbon tax is adding up to $400 per vehicle.
An opposition member: That is not true.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: That is true; and the Labor Party, as they sit in here and behave in this pious fashion, are opposing the removal of that carbon tax in the Senate. If they want to keep Holden here they should take the carbon tax off today.
Small Business: Regulation and Competitiveness
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Is the minister aware that Australia is currently ranked 128 out of 148 nations on the World Economic Forum global competitiveness index in terms of our regulatory burden? What is the government doing to cut red and green tape to remove the regulatory burden on the Australian economy? How will that impact on jobs and growth?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:35): Yes, Member for Mitchell, I am very aware of—horrified, in fact, about—that international ranking of how our economy goes compared to other economies in terms of the regulatory burden within which businesses have to try to create wealth and opportunity. Imagine being impeded by a needless, over-arching red-tape and compliance burden that sees us ranked 128th in terms of regulatory imposts in global economies. So many other countries are doing better than us. We have just heard how the carbon tax is acting as a reverse tariff: as lead in the saddlebag of our industries, particularly the car industry. But let us not overlook the incredible burden and the demoralising impact of the way in which regulatory imposts gum up the economy, sap enterprise, and deny us opportunities to grow and prosper. We are starring in that contest, but that is not a contest we want to win. We need to change that. We need to be far more competitive in terms of the regulatory burden we face.
The Productivity Commission has estimated that about four per cent of our GDP goes to meeting regulatory compliance burdens—four per cent just to meet those imposts! It is anticipated that savings could be of the order of 1½ per cent of our GDP if we could unleash that capacity, where people could invest time and effort in their businesses and enterprises and create opportunities. What an enormous benefit that would be. I am pleased my friend and colleague Josh Frydenberg, the member for Kooyong, is all over this; good luck to him with that work.
In recent times we have seen a belated recognition from Labor. At a time when it implemented 21,000 new and amended regulatory imposts it also went about ignoring all the advice that was available. It also ignored the rigor that needs to come with deciding to implement a regulatory imposition—those impact statements.
Did you know, Madam Speaker, that the previous government exempted itself from about 80 examples where a regulatory impact statement should have been implemented but was not and was simply bypassed? One of the ones I find most staggering is in the paid parental leave scheme. The acting opposition leader, amongst her colleagues, said that they would introduce a paid parental leave scheme and make sure there was no administrative complexity for small business. They failed to do that, and then they boasted about the design of their PPL scheme, deliberately incorporating a burden on small businesses. We went twice to this parliament to have a vote to relieve that regulatory burden on small business and let Centrelink's family assistance office make those payments. The very model that Labor boasted about was so successful in its first six months and Labor voted against it twice.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakefield is already warned. One more utterance and he is out.
Mr BILLSON: It accused me of being disruptive: that I was trying to confuse the scheme. In fact, the then minister said it was disappointing we were trying to release small business from that regulatory burden. Well, lo and behold, in the election, what happens? Labor announces the policy, which is exactly—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And the member for Throsby, also.
Mr BILLSON: the same as the coalition's. Shame on you. You should back our other policy measures and cut the carbon tax as well.
Employment
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:38): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Employment. I refer to the Prime Minister's promise prior to the election that the government would 'produce one million new jobs in five years'. Minister, if 200,000 car-industry workers are now at risk as a result of the government's cutting half a billion dollars in auto-assistance, how many new jobs will the government commit to by 2016?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable the assistant minister, that question did contain argument with regard to speculation on job losses. I would ask him to abstain from answering that part and to answer the rest of the question.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Deputy Leader of the House and Assistant Minister for Employment) (14:39): I thank the member for his question. It seems the peak of arrogance that the members opposite can stand there and claim to be concerned for auto workers in this country at a time when they tax every unit that comes off the production line. They are only pretending to be concerned for the auto industry. If they were concerned for the auto industry they would get behind the government and help us in our work to axe the carbon tax, to axe the mining tax, to cut red tape and to create opportunities for Australian workers. The opposition is all about pretending; they are not about acting in the best interests for auto workers.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:40): My question is—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Grayndler will withdraw that remark, the slur that was made with regard to the assistant minister.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: He knows precisely what I mean.
Mr Albanese: Stanley. Is that the one?
The SPEAKER: Correct.
Mr Albanese: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hinkler will start his question again, and the clock will go back.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:40): My question is to the Treasurer. Is he aware that fruit and vegetable growers in Hinkler are continuing to receive $900 stimulus cheques for backpackers they employed years ago, who are no longer even in the country? What action is the government taking to end the waste and mismanagement of taxpayers' money?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:41): I know the member for Hinkler was not around when they were handing out $900 cheques, but they are still handing out $900 cheques. Five years after the stimulus was called for, nearly nine million $900 cheques went out—and they are still going out. We are going to stop them. What a waste of money. It was the member for Lilley who was the architect of that.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton! The member for Kingston is warned.
Mr HOCKEY: He must be rather proud of that. I picked up on the weekend, in a report from his favoured journalist—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakefield will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Mr HOCKEY: I picked up on the weekend that the member for Lilley is now writing a book. He said: 'Mr Swan, who remains in the parliament,'—could have fooled me—'has signed a book deal with publisher Allen & Unwin with a working title Australian Treasurer. Let go, Wayne, let go!
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 104(a), there is no way this is directly relevant to the question.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will address himself to the question as asked.
Mr HOCKEY: The architect of the $900 cheques, the member for Lilley, sent 16,000 cheques to stimulate dead people. He sent 27,000 $900 cheques to people overseas, to stimulate the Australian economy. That should be a breakout in the chapter on stimulus.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that you asked the Treasurer to return to the question, and he has not changed tack at all.
The SPEAKER: He certainly is answering the question. He was asked about $900 cheques and he is answering that question.
Mr HOCKEY: I was asked about the waste. I refer to an article from The Age, by Tony Wright. He said that talk-back callers proved a little more reckless with the money:
Someone called Denise said she'd spend the cash on a new tattoo to match the wolverine job she has on one foot.
This was from $900 cheque at work. I think that, in the book, there have to be pictures; it cannot be just a lift-out about Denise, whom the member for Lilley should track down—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton!
Mr HOCKEY: We need to have pictures—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: The Tweed Daily News—
Mr Danby: What a stupid example! How many Australians did that?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Melbourne Ports will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: I would refer him to the pictorial. You have to have pictures in a book, and I am sure there will be plenty in that book. I would ask him to take a photo of this:
Mr Cullen, who took over Number 33—formerly the Sanctum—at the start of the year, even ran cheeky newspaper advertisements about the stimulus package, encouraging people to "Get more bang for your buck".
He said the economic downturn had certainly taken its toll on the sex industry.
"It is very quiet at the moment," Mr Cullen said.
Thank God for the $900 cheques!
"The stimulus package helped a bit. Around the time the money started to come in business picked up."
The problem is that it is taxpayers' money that went out: $900 cheques—borrowed money from the next generation—that the member for Lilley and the Labor Party just splashed around without regard. It is only the coalition that is going to stop the waste. It is only the coalition that is going to stop the mismanagement. What a disgrace from Labor.
Employment
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister, and I refer to the Prime Minister's promise to create one million jobs over the next five years. Given that many thousands of jobs are at risk at companies such as Holden, Simplot, Electrolux, Rio Tinto in Gove, the CSIRO and Qantas, how many new jobs will the government commit to by 2016?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:45): We heard in question time today about the 200,000 jobs that Labor lost while it was in office. There were 200,000 people added to the unemployment queue because of Labor's policies. When it comes to, say, the car industry, Labor gave Ford $34 million saying that it would create 300 extra jobs, but eight months later 330 employees lost their jobs. That was the effectiveness of Labor's policy. They gave $215 million to Holden, saying it would secure their future in Australia until 2022, but within months 670 jobs were lost.
The reality is that Labor's inconsistent and incoherent industry policies were a constant threat to the jobs of Australian workers during their entire time in office. What we are proposing for Australia is a different direction: a country that is governed logically and sensibly; that deals carefully with the decision-making processes; that has plans to deliver a stable environment so that people will want to invest in this country—a country free of carbon taxes and mining taxes which have led overseas investors to say that this is not a country where you can invest with any degree of security.
By providing the kind of environment that rewards investment and rewards achievement we will encourage Australian businesses and Australian industry to employ more Australians. That is our commitment—the commitment we made at the time of the election and the commitment we intend to deliver.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:47): Before I call the honourable member for Forrest I wish to advise that we have present in the gallery the parliamentary staff from the Namibian parliament led by the Clerk, Mrs Dorothea Fransman, and we welcome her today.
We also welcome former member for Moreton the Hon. Gary Hardgrave.
We also have visiting from Western Australia, to hear two maiden speeches this afternoon, the Hon. Peter Katsambanis MLC, member of the Northern Metropolitan Region, and Councillor James Limnios. We welcome you as well.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Education
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Education. I remind the minister that the higher education support bill contains $2.3 billion in savings measures nominated by the previous government. Can the minister update the House on the progress of the bill and on what impact its failure to pass will have on the federal budget deficit and the Commonwealth's debt position?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:48): I can inform the member for Forrest that, unfortunately for the Higher Education Support Act, the bill is stuck in the Senate while Labor and the Greens continue to refuse to pass it. We are in the ludicrous position in the current parliament where Labor are now voting against the savings measures they proposed whilst in government. They are also voting against increasing the debt ceiling limit. So we have the ridiculous situation where Labor had savings measures that they now oppose. They are adding to the debt limit, they are adding to the deficit and they are voting against the bill to increase the debt ceiling limit. That is how economically illiterate Labor have become.
I notice that Paul Keating the former Prime Minister is in Canberra this week to talk to the caucus about economic matters. I am sure he would have some advice for them, because Labor are tremendously confused at the moment. They are very confused economically. They want to have their cake and they want to eat it too. They want to add to the debt, they want to add to the deficit, they want to vote against savings measures they proposed, and they want to also vote against increasing the debt ceiling limit bill.
We have the ridiculous situation where Labor not only are opposing our program and frustrating the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax and savings measures but also voting against their own program when they were in office. No wonder Labor voters are confused. First they are told that Kevin Rudd is the Messiah; then he is the monster. Then they are told, three years later, that Julia Gillard is the Messiah; then they are told that Julia Gillard is not the Messiah but a liability, and they have to go back to the monster.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, when someone is as far away from direct relevance as that under standing order 104(a), we should not have to rise on a point of order before that sort of nonsense is brought to heel.
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable the minister and ask him to address his remarks to the question.
Mr PYNE: I will, Madam Speaker, and I am trying to explain so that it is easy for the opposition to see how confusing their position is on the debt ceiling limit bill and on the savings measures that they proposed and that they now oppose. This is but a piece of Labor over the last six years. They are so bad economically and so juvenile economically that they are now making the flat-earth Greens look economically literate. I am hoping that Paul Keating this week might be able to give them some good advice, because Paul Keating was a member of a government—the Hawke government—which actually made a difference to the economy in this country. They would never have proposed the savings measures and then opposed those same savings measures. They would never have said that the debt ceiling limit should not be raised but then voted against measures that would reduce Commonwealth debt. When Mr Keating comes I look forward to his pearls of wisdom informing the Labor caucus about how to be a legitimate and economically literate opposition.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The government promised that it would protect our borders with the discipline and focus of a targeted military operation. How did 27 asylum seekers, last week, camp for three days on an Australian beach without being noticed? Why did they have to wander down the road to find the minister's targeted operation before the minister's targeted operation found them?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my left. The minister has the call.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chifley will desist.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:52): The 27 people whom the shadow minister referred to are very lucky to be alive. They could have met a far worse fate, because the warning that is there to people who are thinking of getting on boats on the eve of the monsoon is this: there is no big safety net waiting on the other side. They are very fortunate that they did not encounter a fate far worse than the one that they found.
I note those opposite have sought to draw attention to this matter. They must have collective amnesia about the previous six years. If they want to understand what failure looks like, it looks like this: over 50,000 arrivals; over 1,100 people dead; over 15,000 people who were given permanent visas, denying those who are waiting offshore. That is what failure looks like. That is not a failure this government is going to repeat, because this government is putting in place the measures that have led to a more than 80 per cent reduction in illegal arrivals to Australia by boat since that operation was put in place. Those opposite do not like to hear that figure, particularly the Don Bradman of border failure, the Manager of Opposition Business, because he holds the record for the highest level of illegal arrivals by boat of any immigration minister in our history. He even surpassed the member for Gorton and the member for McMahon. The member for McMahon was a steady performer on failure—I will give him that—but he never was able to meet the heights that the Manager of Opposition Business was able to reach.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 104(a) requires that the minister be directly relevant to the question. He has strayed very, very far from the question.
The SPEAKER: I think the question that contained phrases like 'wandering down the road' was not as specific as the member might like to make out. I give the call to the minister.
Mr MORRISON: I go back to the incident which we reported on Thursday evening. I took the opportunity to personally brief the shadow minister that night. I am surprised that, when he would have been of the understanding that nine people were still missing and there was a search operation underway, he chose to go out and make political mileage out of this issue on that morning. But, for those who want to think about what the previous government did, I remember not just the Geraldton incident—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler, is this a point of order other than standing order 104?
Mr Albanese: It is on irony, Madam Speaker!
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
Mr MORRISON: I note the interjection from Labor's people's choice for opposition leader over there, but I can tell you what the people did not choose: a continuation of the border failures we saw on the previous government's watch. They hit a high note when, I recall on one occasion, a vessel came into Flying Fish Cove and, instead of doing what this government did, which is have an incident assessment done for something like this, they announced that the vessel had been intercepted—by the wharf!
Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I remind the minister of Friday's historic announcement that Australia has secured a free trade agreement with South Korea. Will the minister advise the House of what benefits Australians will see from that free trade agreement?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:56): I thank the member for Barker for his question. I congratulate him on his first speech, in which he demonstrated what a passionate advocate he will be for his electorate. I can confirm to him that the Australia-Korea free trade agreement that was announced on Friday is undeniably good news, not only for agricultural producers in his electorate but also across Australia. It is going to help grow our economy, it will provide certainty for investors and it will certainly create an environment for more jobs in Australia. This Korea-Australia free trade agreement will lift key tariffs off key agricultural products. Some Korean tariffs are as high as 300 per cent and we will see a number of them reduced to zero on key agricultural products, particularly beef. Beef producers were estimated to be losing $1.4 billion because the agreement was stalled under Labor. Tariffs also go to zero on wine, wheat, canola oil, seafood, tomatoes, grapes and others.
I point out that the Australian government has now delivered on an election promise to complete this agreement. Within 100 days of coming to office, we have concluded this agreement—something that the Labor Party could never do. We were able to make a pragmatic decision and put aside Labor ideology. We put the interests of the exporters and producers first. I congratulate the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, on an outstanding job in concluding a comprehensive, high-quality agreement with our third-largest export partner, our fourth-largest trading partner. It is a quality agreement, not only in agriculture but also in resources and energy and manufacturing. It creates a new market for services. In fact, this is the best free trade agreement that we have concluded in relation to market access for services—an outstanding outcome. It is also reducing investment barriers.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: So this free trade agreement, which was concluded by Minister Robb and which could never have been concluded by those opposite because of their ideological barrier, will create more jobs and grow our economy. It is an outstanding win for an Australian minister, it is an outstanding win for the Australian government and, most of all, it is a win for the Australian people. This will create jobs. I congratulate Minister Robb.
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, could I ask that the foreign minister table the agreement?
The SPEAKER: That is quite out of order unless that is your formal question. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Was that formally a question? Was that an interjection?
Ms PLIBERSEK: No, it was a point of order.
The SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. If you wish to ask the minister to table any documents from which he was reading, that is in order.
Ms PLIBERSEK: It was a request to table a document to which he was referring.
The SPEAKER: To ask as an interjection for the tabling of something else is not.
Mr Pyne: The standing order relates to documents that a minister was referring to. The minister was standing here without a note. I know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is very inexperienced in parliamentary practice, but she should really try and get those basics right.
The SPEAKER: The point is: if you wish to ask for documents to be tabled to which the minister is referring, that is in order. But to get up and interject and ask for a document to simply be out of the ether produced is not in order.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Earlier this year, the now Prime Minister described the arrival in Australia of an undetected asylum seeker vessel as evidence that the government has 'kind of surrendered'. Now that one boat has reached Darwin and a group of asylum seekers has spent three days on Christmas Island undetected, by the Prime Minister's own measure, when it comes to asylum seekers, has the government 'kind of surrendered'?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:01): I would have to check the record, but that vessel that came to Geraldton on that day probably would have been vessel 750 something, I suspect, at that time. It came to the mainland of Australia, not to Christmas Island. It was sponsored by Deutsche Bank, I think, from memory!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: To assist the member: in October, November and so far in December there have been 14 boats that have arrived including the one where 27 people were very fortunate to get ashore and not perish at sea last Monday evening. During the same period last year under the former government's policies, 97 vessels turned up in the same period. I know that those opposite are very sensitive on this point. I welcome the fact that they wish to come in here on multiple occasions and ask questions about these matters. I am happy to answer because their record speaks plainly for itself—that is, they have the worst record of border failure of any government in our history. The Australian people voted for a change, and they are getting that change: there has been an 80 per cent reduction in illegal arrivals to Australia by boat since operation sovereign borders.
I notice that the manager of opposition business continues to protest. But the facts speak for themselves—he was the biggest failure on our borders in our nation's history.
Agriculture
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the release today of the terms of reference for the agricultural competitiveness white paper. Will Australia's most passionate agriculture minister advise the House what the government is doing to build a more competitive and profitable future for Australian agriculture?
The SPEAKER: I call the Minister for Agriculture—and he might leave the passion out of it!
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:03): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I cannot help being passionate around you! I thank the member for Mallee for his question. The member for Mallee comes from an area where one of the great products amongst many around Mildura is potatoes: spuds. There was about a 303 per cent tariff on spuds into Korea before the coalition came in. The coalition were instrumental in reducing those tariffs. I think we should start this answer by basically ticking the boxes of the things we have done in the first 100 days.
When we arrived there was no farm finance agreement; but there is now, so we can tick that box. When we arrived there was no free trade agreement with Korea; but we have that now, so we can tick that box. When we arrived the former government had destroyed the live cattle trade; but we fixed that up, so we can tick that box. But it is not just what we have done in the first 100 days; it is our plan for future decades. This white paper is so important because, if our nation is to be a nation with many strings to its bow, then we must have a strong agricultural sector. If we live with mining, then we are going to live in a boom-bust cycle. If we deliver services, then we are just one click away on the internet from competition at probably a lower wage rate and, in many instances, a lower standard of education. But in agriculture we have a great strategic advantage to pursue.
This paper will have three stages. The first stage, the issues section, is where we right now are collecting all the ideas and are out there giving the Australian people the opportunity to contribute. The next section is the green paper, where we have a range of alternatives. The final stage, the white paper, is where we can select those alternatives. This gives the Australian people a sense that we will be part of an Asian future. We will be delivering an outcome, and we will be getting a better return to the farm gate because we have a proven track record in the past and we have a proven track record for the future.
I am looking forward to working with my counterpart on the other side. He wrote a very good media release today. He was getting stuck into me a little bit, but I am willing to work. I am looking forward to explaining to the Australian people how we have a great future in agriculture under a coalition government.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Can I ask the minister to table the imaginary script from which he was reading?
The SPEAKER: That is quite out of order.
Rail Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:06): My question is addressed to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Does the minister now acknowledge that the upgrade to The Tonsley Park rail line is for passenger rail, not freight, as he told radio Adelaide FIVEaa on 24 October?
Does the fact that it is passenger rail and not freight rail have an impact on whether the federal government will fund it?
An honourable member: Good question!
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (15:07): I thank the member for Grayndler for his question. It is a good question. We are committed to being the infrastructure government, led by the infrastructure Prime Minister. We will spend many billions of dollars improving productivity, particularly in my home state of South Australia, which has one of the worst economies in Australia. It has had the despicable combination of 12 years of a very bad state government under Labor and six years of a very bad federal government under Labor.
Mr Albanese: Speaker—
Mr BRIGGS: Audition No. 5, Anthony! How many Managers of Opposition Business are there?
Mr Albanese: Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance: to help the assistant minister—
The SPEAKER: I think that would be out of order, thank you.
Mr Albanese: I would table the transcript of his interview. It is his words.
The SPEAKER: The honourable member will resume his seat.
An opposition member: He said yes!
The SPEAKER: I am sorry, Member, but I heard a no.
An opposition member: He said yes!
The SPEAKER: I am sorry but the Leader of the House said no.
Mr BRIGGS: I was overruled. Burkey, that is what you are meant to do when he gets up every time: overrule him. You are the leader, mate. Take responsibility.
The SPEAKER: The assistant minister will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know about disputes in South Australia between the member for Mayo and the member for Sturt, but the member for Mayo had the call and was at the dispatch box and agreed that his words could be tabled.
The SPEAKER: In this case the Leader of the House has the obligation to give leave or not give leave. I call the honourable the assistant minister. Good try.
Mr BRIGGS: It was nice to hear from the member for Chifley arguing against the WestConnex proposal in Sydney today—extraordinary! What I can say is that the coalition at the election were very clear about our policy, and the people chose us.
Hospitals
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Health and, given today's sitting arrangements, I am looking forward to hearing the answer. Will the minister inform the House of how many patients are treated in private hospitals across Australia every year? What percentage of the estimated 95,000 people who have private health insurance in Reid can expect to have important information in their electronic records accessed and updated if they present at a private hospital for treatment?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:10): I very much thank the member for Reid for his question. He is particularly interested in getting better services for the people of Reid. I have been able to detail some of the achievements of the former health minister—or, rather, the Acting Leader of the Opposition, with all the qualities of Julia Gillard sitting in that chair. She is fully behind the leader She is fully behind Bill Shorten—just like Julia Gillard was behind Kevin Rudd! Remember him?
Ms King: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance: he was asked specifically about the electronic health record, and I ask you to draw him back to that question.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. The member can resume her seat.
Mr DUTTON: A fair point of order, Madam Speaker. The member rightly points out that in his electorate he has 95,000 people who hold private health insurance. Bear in mind that the member for Sydney, the former health minister, claimed that it was a great day for the country—the rollout of the personally controlled electronic health record, referred to affectionately as the PCEHR.
When you consider that 95,000 people within just the electorate of Reid have private health insurance, you would have thought that one of the achievements of the member for Sydney would have been that private health insurance patients, when they went into a hospital, could have had their record accessed and updated in that private hospital. We know that around 40 per cent of hospital patients are treated in private hospitals. And yet I explained to the House last week that, in the formation of the personally controlled electronic health record, the previous government forgot to speak to doctors and public hospitals about this record. But now it turns out that they forgot to speak to private hospitals. I will ask for the help of my colleagues here: you would have thought that, of 95,000 people, what—50,000?
Mr Hockey: Forty thousand!
Mr DUTTON: No! Let us say 20,000 of the 95,000—
Government members: No!
Mr DUTTON: Do you think 20,000?
Government members: No!
Mr DUTTON: No! They are too generous; not even 10,000, not even a thousand, not a hundred, not one—not one patient! Unbelievable! Do you know that this former government, this former minister who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition, spent $1 billion on the personally controlled electronic health record. About 10,000 Australians had a record uploaded by their doctor. But we know that people who go into emergency departments and people who go into private hospitals cannot have their record accessed, in many cases, except in, out of the 150 electorates, just one electorate—
Government members: Which one?
Mr DUTTON: Now my colleagues ask, 'Which electorate?' It was one electorate: the electorate of Sydney. But they did not get around to the other 149.
Mr Truss: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Disappointingly, the Minister for Health has not worked out that St Vincent's Hospital is not in my electorate.
The SPEAKER: That is not correcting the record, but nonetheless the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made her point.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:14): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr MORRISON: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr MORRISON: An article by Chris Johnson and Heath Aston in The Sun-Herald on 8 December made reference to an alleged conversation that took place between me and the chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a complete fabrication. It is total fiction. What is more concerning is that that position was advised to The Sun-Herald, prior to publication, while the story was being written. So, if you want to read some lies, read The Sun-Herald.
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: that went well beyond what is allowed during a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: I will remember that next time the member seeks the same courtesy of the House.
Mr Burke: When you believed members of this side had strayed beyond, you pulled them up immediately, and you have not done the same with members of the government.
The SPEAKER: To the contrary. I have no hesitation in doing it to both sides.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (15:15): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mrs MARKUS: Most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mrs MARKUS: On 5 December, the member for Sydney claimed in a speech, 'She—' referring to me and not even knowing the name of my seat—'is not in the Blue Mountains very much, is she?' This speech was then posted on the member's Facebook page. What a gross inaccuracy. During the recent bushfires I have spent every waking hour in my community doing whatever I possibly could—I failed to see the member for Sydney once.
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not see how the final phrase of that personal explanation can be at all consistent with the ruling you gave me a couple of minutes ago.
The SPEAKER: What was the phrase to which you objected?
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, it is a great game to dare me to repeat something I think is inappropriate, but that will not be done.
The SPEAKER: The point I made earlier in the day to you, as Manager of Opposition Business, and to the deputy leader, who is acting leader, was that her comment was not a proper explanation of where she had been misrepresented. To the contrary, what the member for Macquarie was pointing out was: where a statement had been made, where it had been placed and why it was wrong. Clearly, that is the point of having an opportunity for a personal explanation where you claim to have been misrepresented. The member for Sydney, the Acting Leader of the Opposition, should have followed the same form in her explanation as the member for Grayndler, which is always done, absolutely properly, by that member.
Mr Burke: The final phrase used by the member had nothing to do with her claim of where she had been personally misrepresented—nothing whatsoever.
The SPEAKER: I will have to take your word for that, because I did not hear anything that was not relevant, and you are not prepared to tell me what it was, so I cannot make any further comment.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:18): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:19): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating certain members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:19): by leave—I move:
That Mr Christensen, Mr Entsch, Mr Gray, Mrs Griggs, Ms MacTiernan, Ms Price and Mr Snowdon be appointed as members of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:20): I move:
That this House:
(1) repeal the following resolutions:
(a) Broadcasting and re-broadcasting of excerpts of proceedings, adopted 30 November 1988;
(b) Televising of proceedings, adopted 16 October 1991;
(c) Extension of House monitoring service, adopted 28 September 1993;
(d) Radio broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings-general principles, adopted 20 September 1994; and
(e) Broadcasting of proceedings-conditions for broadcasters, adopted 1 May 1996; and
(2) in their place, adopt the following resolution:
1. Provision of broadcast
a. The House authorises the broadcast and rebroadcast of the proceedings and excerpts of proceedings of the House, its committees and of the Federation Chamber in accordance with this resolution.
b. The House authorises the provision of sound and vision coverage of proceedings of the House, its committees, and of the Federation Chamber, including records of past proceedings, through the House Monitoring Service and through the Parliament of Australia website.
c. Access to the House Monitoring Service sound and vision coverage of the proceedings of the House, its committees and the Federation Chamber is provided to persons and organisations as determined by the Speaker, on terms and conditions determined by the Speaker which must not be inconsistent with this resolution.
d. The Speaker shall report to the House on persons and organisations in receipt of the service and on any terms and conditions determined under paragraph 1(c).
e. Use of sound and vision coverage of proceedings of the House, its committees and the Federation Chamber, including records of past proceedings, published on the Parliament of Australia website is subject to conditions of use determined by the Speaker.
2. Broadcast of House of Representatives and Federation Chamber proceedings – House monitoring service
Access to proceedings provided through the House Monitoring Service is subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a. Only the following broadcast material shall be used:
i. switched sound and vision feed of the House of Representatives, its committees and the Federation Chamber provided by the Parliament that is produced for broadcast, re-broadcast and archiving; and
ii. official broadcast material supplied by authorised parliamentary staff.
b. Broadcast material shall be used only for the purposes of fair and accurate reports of proceedings, and shall not be used for:
i. political party advertising or election campaigns; or
ii. commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
c. Reports of proceedings shall be such as to provide a balanced presentation of differing views.
d. Excerpts of proceedings which are subsequently withdrawn may be broadcast only if the withdrawal is also reported.
e. The instructions of the Speaker or his or her delegates, which are not inconsistent with these conditions or the rules applying to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, shall be observed.
3. Broadcast of committee proceedings
The following conditions apply to the broadcasting of committee proceedings:
a. Recording and broadcasting of proceedings of a committee is subject to the authorisation of the committee;
b. A committee may authorise the broadcasting of only its public proceedings;
c. Recording and broadcasting of a committee is not permitted during suspensions of proceedings, or following an adjournment of proceedings;
d. A committee may determine conditions, not inconsistent with this resolution, for the recording and broadcasting of its proceedings, may order that any part of its proceedings not be recorded or broadcast, and may give instructions for the observance of conditions so determined and orders so made. A committee shall report to the House any wilful breach of such conditions, orders or instructions;
e. Recording and broadcasting of proceedings of a committee shall not interfere with the conduct of those proceedings, shall not encroach into the committee’s work area, or capture documents (either in hard copy or electronic form) in the possession of committee members, witnesses or committee staff;
f. Broadcasts of proceedings of a committee, including excerpts of committee proceedings, shall be for the purpose only of making fair and accurate reports of those proceedings, and shall not be used for:
i. political party advertising or election campaigns; or
ii. commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising;
g. Where a committee intends to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings, a witness who is to appear in those proceedings shall be given reasonable opportunity, before appearing in the proceedings, to object to the broadcasting of the proceedings and to state the ground of the objection. The committee shall consider any such objection, having regard to the proper protection of the witness and the public interest in the proceedings, and if the committee decides to permit broadcasting of the proceedings notwithstanding the witness’ objection, the witness shall be so informed before appearing in the proceedings.
4. Radio broadcast of parliamentary proceedings by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – general principles
The House adopts the following general principles agreed to by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings on 19 March 2013:
a. Allocation of the broadcast between the Senate and the House of Representatives
The proceedings of Parliament shall be broadcast live whenever a House is sitting. The allocation of broadcasts between the Senate and the House of Representatives will be in accordance with the standing determinations made by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. It is anticipated that over time, the coverage of each House will be approximately equal.
b. Rebroadcast of questions and answers
At the conclusion of the live broadcast of either House, questions without notice and answers thereto from the House not allocated the broadcast shall be rebroadcast.
c. Unusual or exceptional circumstances
Nothing in these general principles shall prevent the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings from departing from them in unusual or exceptional circumstances.
5. This resolution shall continue in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the House in this or a subsequent Parliament. (Notice given 20 November 2013.)
Today I introduce a resolution to replace the existing resolutions of the House for the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. The terms of this resolution were developed and endorsed in the previous parliament by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. This resolution authorises the broadcast and re-broadcast of proceedings and excerpts of proceedings of the House, its committees and the Federation Chamber. The resolution allows the sound and vision coverage to be broadcast to the House monitoring service and through the Parliament of Australia website.
There are already resolutions adopted by the House to authorise the broadcast of proceedings. However, these old resolutions need to be updated to take into account new broadcast technologies and platforms, including broadcast via the Parliament House website and through social media. This resolution will do this while still retaining the clear control of the House over access to proceedings broadcast via the House monitoring service. The existing powers of committees to control the broadcast of their public proceedings remain, too.
The new resolution will also remove inconsistencies with the rules for media related activity in parliament house and its precincts. These media rules were revised by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, following a public inquiry, and were designed as part of a package to go with the revised resolution. This resolution will strengthen the nexus between the conditions of broadcasting and the responsibilities of accredited media personnel in Parliament House. An equivalent motion will be moved in the other place. I commend the resolution to the House.
In closing, this was a resolution of the House that the member for Grayndler, then Leader of the House, and I discussed in the dying days of the last parliament. We unfortunately ran out of time to move this resolution in the House. The resolution that I move today was largely agreed with the former Leader of the House before the election. The most significant aspect to it is the removal of the provisions of the House that do not allow the use of the broadcast to satirise and ridicule of members of parliament, which was a rule that was more honoured in the breach than kept by various media outlets, particularly the Daily Telegraph. Who can forget the various occasions on which members in this place have been satirised or ridiculed by the Daily Telegraph? Members of parliament need to have thick skins or develop them if they have not got them already. This resolution of the House brings into place the agreements that have been made between the opposition and the government and that were worked on by the joint parliamentary committee over many months. It updates the House to fit the modern understanding of how the media should broadcast the parliament.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (15:23): I second the motion and welcome the adoption of the resolution, which reflect the rules for media related activity in Parliament House and its precincts that were adopted by the committee and endorsed and tabled by the presiding officers in late 2012. These will now be in force. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I want to begin by thanking the honourable member for Chisholm, who chaired the committee in her capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The member for Chisholm is attending parliamentary commitments overseas in the Cook Islands and is unable to speak here today. But I wish to convey to the House her sentiments. I also want to commend her stewardship of the committee and in particular I want to thank her for her dedication and for the focus she showed as chair during the inquiry that the committee conducted into media related activity at Parliament House.
Given the nature of the inquiry, sensitivity and diplomacy were required, especially when dealing with members of the press gallery and representatives of other media outlets, in particular because we were discussing the parameters of media related activity and the usage of footage taken in Parliament House. As such, I would also like to thank other members of the committee, including no less than Senator the Hon. John Hogg, the President of the Senate. I also want to thank the member for Parkes; the member for Fowler; the Hon. John Murphy, the former member for Reid, who is very well known for his keen interest in media related activity in Parliament House; the member for Longman; Senator Stephen Parry; and Senator Lin Thorp.
The inquiry gave the committee the opportunity to look at issues, take evidence and form recommendations to bring the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings in line with the changing nature of modern broadcasting requirements and community expectations. We worked in a collegiate and bipartisan manner with a clear view that all the stakeholders, parliament and media, needed to work together to devise the best possible and most workable rules that effectively work in the public interest.
Many thanks need to also go to the following people who served in the secretariat: Mr James Catchpole, who was secretary from 2 October 2012; Siwan Davies, who was secretary until 2 October 2012; and Sonia Palmieri, who served as secretary until 17 December 2012.
In conclusion, the committee has put together a series of rules that reflect the expectations of the stakeholders and that will provide a workable and fair framework in which we can conduct our procedures and interactions. It is a fair balance between preserving the requirements of dignity and privacy while at the same time giving the appropriate access necessary to the press in their cause of reporting and accountability. I commend the rules to the House.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:26): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
The SPEAKER (15:26): Order! Before I call the honourable member for Pearce, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
Mr PORTER (Pearce) (15:27): Madam Speaker, thank you and congratulations on your ascension to the chair. I would also like to thank all of my new coalition colleagues. Genuinely, the welcome here has been collegiate and very warm. I am intent to bask in this warmth before people get to know me and it grinds to an inevitable halt.
On 23 November 1956, a painfully angular 19-year-old Brisbane boy with a physique the cross between a praying mantis and a wire coat hanger jumped for his country on the first day of the Melbourne Olympic Games. That boy was my father. His sole possessions totalled an ill-fitting Australian team tracksuit and a pair of Buddy Holly style horn-rimmed glassed. He competed in what was then and what remains to this day the longest and most engrossing field event in Olympic history. After over six hours of competition, the entire crowd remained at the MCG, well into the deep cusp of twilight. They watched breathless as Chilla Porter, on his third and final attempt at six foot 11½ inches, clipped the bar ever so gently. It wobbled for what seemed like an age and eventually dislodged and fell in silence with him to the sandpit. In the result, he was beaten by the great African-American athlete Charles Dumas, who had made the same height with his own second attempt, setting an Olympic record in the process.
If the maiden speech is for the existential questions of politics—Who is the member? Why are they here? What do they believe?—then for reasons that I cannot perfectly explain, the authentic explanation for me somehow starts with that event in 1956. This event, which passed into Porter family folklore long before my birth, has woven itself into my being in subterranean ways. Why it affects me is hard to say, but affect me it does. For a not particularly demonstrative person, it is an event that percolates emotion through me with even shallow reflections on it. Indeed, it is either curious or positively strange that the two images that most readily draw emotion from me are images of my wife laughing and my father jumping. Ultimately, I may be nothing more than a prime candidate for post-doctoral research in Freudian psychology. But that is just the way it is.
Although proud of my father, the significance of this event for me is more than pride. If I had to guess, there are probably two things about it that most resonate with my conscience. First, it is the sheer individual inspiration of the event. This was not the casual brilliance of a Lord Burghley, upon whom the aristocratic hurdler in Chariots of Fire was based. In fact, among Burghley's many athletic achievements was that he was able to race around the promenade deck of the Queen Mary in 57 seconds dressed in a full dinner suit. My father has never seen the point of owning a dinner suit!
Chilla Porter's achievement was the welding of solid but far from limitless athletic talent to devoted levels of discipline and training, a little self-belief and an unbreakable steely nerve. That such an unassuming man as my father could achieve so much by combining comparatively modest raw ability with sheer will is proof definitive of the wonderful idea that with effort almost anything is possible.
In liberal democracies opportunity is imperfect but it is absolutely real. Probative evidence exists to demonstrate that opportunity and choice are all around us. Indeed, Charlie Dumas's gold medal in the same event was achieved by a black man living in Compton, east LA in 1950s America. That Charlie Dumas overcame reputedly considerable poverty and prejudice to become a great athlete and later educator is individual triumph writ large.
Governments can and should promote more opportunity, but opportunity is not merely the speculation of political philosophy or the gift of legislators. In modern Australia opportunity exists, likely to a fuller extent than it has existed anywhere at any time in human history. As a people it is possible that we have become a little too involved in the other great Australian sport: the blaming of government every time something goes wrong in our lives. We can acknowledge the ongoing need for government to diminish disadvantage, we can recognise that sometimes failing with this and many other tasks, governments are often very blameworthy—but in government, as in life, we should not stray too far from the fact that far more often than not the ultimate responsibility for individual success or failure lies with the individual themselves.
The second feature of this Olympic event that I think resonates is how it constantly reminds me that so many things in life are so finely balanced. In sport and life there is often an indistinguishably fine line between immortal glory and something less. Probably because of my father's experience I have long held a deep fascination with causation inside historical and societal cusps, the pivot points of dynamic times on which many later things will depend. Certainly, for my father, that teetering high-jump bar was one of those life-changing cusp moments: an event that could go either way and which sets in motion a much longer chain of events—what Churchill described, on a far grander scale, as a 'hinge of fate'.
For my father, silver or gold did not come to define his character; nevertheless, the outcome of that day changed the course of his life forever. Had he won—and it would have been the greatest Cinderella story in Olympic history had he won—likely the push to live in the United States on an athletic scholarship would have been overwhelming and things would have been much different.
As it was, his was an Australian future. A silver medal gave him just enough cachet to achieve gold in the marriage game: he met my mother, an attractive researcher at TheWest Australian. Other than my eventual birth more than a decade later this had two very happy effects: (1) I inherited my mother's love of books and history; and (2) I narrowly escaped Queensland and was born and raised in the great state of Western Australia. Queenslanders: I feel your pain!
Before turning to other matters I will just add that, unfortunately, I inherited little of the athletic ability of my father and 100 per cent of the chicken legs. It is well, Madam Speaker, that you discourage the wearing of shorts in the chamber!
My father later worked for the Liberal Party, doing so at his own father's urging—a man now passed but who established the Queensland Liberal Party under the guidance of Sir Robert Menzies. So I grew up with my sister in a state of opportunities, with a fascination for turning points in a house with a faint but fair air of sport and politics. To now represent the Western Australians in Pearce, as a member of the Australian parliament, is the greatest responsibility of my own life; and for as long as I am entrusted with that responsibility I will give it absolutely everything I have.
Pearce is not a Federation seat but rather the product of the Federation's dynamism. It was created in 1993, a product of the extraordinary growth that has been WA's hallmark over the past 25 years. Preceding my custody of this responsibility were the Hon. Fred Chaney and the Hon. Judy Moylan. It might be noted that, on some matters at least, the three of us come from slightly different pews in the broad Liberal church. But pluralism is where Liberal politics derives its great resilience, and I admire both my predecessors as accomplished Australians dedicated to public service and to their principles.
The places of Pearce have a real romance to them. My house is a walk away from the place where in 1658 Abraham Leeman led an excursion of Dutch mariners onshore in search of the recently shipwrecked Gilt Dragon. Many a WA child has been sent like Leeman into the sand dunes in search of buried treasure. To the disappointment of hopeful parents with mortgages, all of these children have been unsuccessful, as Leeman was 400 years ago.
From the reef sheltered Mediterranean lagoons, beaches and crayfish pots of the shipwrecked coast, the electorate of Pearce travels inland across suburbs staggered through tangles of acacia and national parks. Market gardens, wineries and orchards then tilt into the heartland of the Central Wheatbelt, where fields of wheat and canola require great toil but produce golden slaloms of harvest. The people represent the full history and diversity of the state itself. They are aspirational, entrepreneurial and above all hardworking. They deserve coherent, orthodox, stable government.
At the centre of the electorate is the Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce. It is a particular honour to represent a seat in which the RAAF work and train. No matter how many times, how noisily, or how low for that matter, those planes sear over the dunes above my house, I delight at the awesome sound and sight of them—for they are the heirs of the most important pivot point in modern world history, an event in which many Australians fought and died and which has fascinated me since my youth: the Battle of Britain.
The needle hook of popular hindsight focuses on the Boy's Own Annualqualities of the Battle of Britain and sometimes glosses over the rich tapestry of decisions that led to the five months of intense conflict. The extraordinary heroism of those last threads in time is astonishing, but the outcome of this battle was determined ultimately by the way in which that sacrifice joined a deep composite of multiple decisions made over earlier decades: procurement decisions, technological decisions, tactical decisions and ultimately political decisions. A few of these were obviously revealed as pivotal to the minds of the time; others were decisions whose later importance was more temporally obscure. But somehow a guiding principle seemed to structure the many decisions, all apparently underpinned by a shared sense of the great need for preparedness—so many decisions, so finely balanced. Too many poor decisions in the 15-year historical web preceding the Battle of Britain, and all the heroism in the Commonwealth would not have prevailed in those crucial five months.
Important moments in history are determined by all kinds of factors. However, the single most important factor is almost always the quality of the people in charge of decision making. And hinges of fate are lubricated by the collective outcome of quality decision making. For anyone who believes this, it makes some sense to aspire to a place that offers the toughest opportunity to prove oneself over time in the art of decision making. And if that means turning myself from a rooster into a feather duster, so be it. Like most aspirant decision makers, I suffer from three conceits: decision makers think they have something to offer; they think that their ideas are well adapted to the times; and there is the great generational conceit that something about their own time is uniquely important and worth deciding. On matters personal, I oscillate between self-doubt and confidence. I have absolutely no doubt with respect to the third conceit. I know that every generation likes to believe that their times are special, but without a shadow of a doubt the times through which this parliament will live and through which its followers will live will guide the nation. It will be pivotal—in fact, electrifying—replete with opportunity for both success and failure.
And the great challenge of our time will be the Asian convergence. From the office of Treasurer and Attorney-General for Western Australia, I watched an economy rise in concert with the Asian convergence. The Asian convergence is the single greatest economic event since the industrial revolution. WA's success did not just happen; it was envisaged and planned into being by generations of decision makers going back through the decades, right back to Sir Charles Court and even before that great man. At the crescendo of the Asian century we will watch as hundreds of millions more people join the global economy. That 60 per cent of the world's population will in our lifetime converge rapidly towards our own standard of living will have deep implications for the entire world. But that this 60 per cent are our neighbours, with clocks set to our own time zones, means that Australia faces the economic opportunity of its life.
There exists—and I firmly believe this—an opportunity to herald in a great Australian flourishing. But, as with all times of opportunity, the future is uncertain. And, just as with the Battle of Britain, too many poor decisions and our opportunities will be lost, and Australia will face a not-too-gradual decline. The one certainty will be that some gentle, happy equilibrium of our national prospects will not be the order of the day. Ours will be the age and the region of rise and fall. In the era of change, we will need to change. And courage will be required by this generation of parliamentarians to progress reform. The swift return to robust surplus is an absolutely critical—but not sufficient—condition to growing our economy. There are many reforms we may need to embrace, but perhaps our guiding principle might be to avoid competing against Asia and to promote competition for Asia. Competing for Asian markets, for Asian investment, for Asian tourists and for Asian students makes sense. Prioritising competition against South Korea or China in goods that they now best produce and export by the billions makes perhaps less sense.
Reform is difficult, but the stakes are high and the need is pressing. It is not just our standard of living that will be in peril if we fail to make the best decisions. As a nation small in number, in an immensely populous region, our national security has been founded not just upon alliances but also by superior productivity underpinning a regional economic ascendancy. But our neighbours are growing fast, and it would be folly to believe that our economic ascendancy will last forever irrespective of what we do domestically. Economic growth fuelled by free, competitive markets drives the greatest welfare engine ever in existence: employment. But growth is also the engine that drives welfare and culture, and in our age it will be intimately linked with security. International friendships are always best maintained through economic strength. If we are to exist and thrive with Asian tigers, we would be well advised to remain a formidable economic creature in our own right.
One area ripe for economic reform is the federal system, and I will close with a brief observation on that. The great myth of the federation is that things would be more efficient without the states. First, postulating what Australia would be like without states is as futile as postulating what Switzerland would be like without mountains. The federal government is the complicated child of five state parents; it is not the product of immaculate conception—although sometimes it has thought itself infallible. The only thing allowing for the endurance of a view that central government would do a better job in child protection, hospitals or police is the thankful fact that it has never had to do those things. Leaving aside the very wise proposition that centralising power can lead to its corruption and overuse, efficient policy—particularly in service provision—is best devised by governments as proximate to people as rational organisational principles will allow.
The federal government now accounts for just over half of all government expenditure in Australia, with 80 per cent of the revenue base. The states roughly account for the rest, but with only 15 per cent of the direct revenue base. These figures reveal great fiscal imbalance, a major problem that is in dire need of reform. But they also demonstrate the simple fact that state government is critical to the success of the nation. Almost half of everything done by all government in Australia is done by the states. Reform in this area will require federal leadership, and it must be in the national interest to improve the fiscal architecture of the federation. The GST was supposed to be state revenue; it was supposed to fix fiscal imbalance and help the states do their half.
But, over time, two problems have arisen. First—and right now—almost 60 per cent of all the GST moneys donated by the big four states go to the Northern Territory. Previously, the responsibility to subsidise the Northern Territory—and it is a proper responsibility—resided with the Commonwealth. Now it falls upon the four largest states which, with only 15 per cent of the revenue base, can least afford that responsibility. The remaining GST donations are sent to other states in a process of equalisation. There should always be some level of equalisation, perhaps even a high level of equalisation. But the present system is too extreme, highly inequitable and propagates enormous inefficiency. Citing previous gains to justify Western Australia's present mammoth losses ignores proportionality and fails to recognise that historical equalisation in WA's favour was meant as compensation, not subsidy, as WA's trading economy was crippled by national protectionism in times gone by.
But, in any event, the primary problem is not one of equity; it is one of efficiency. Presently, every single dollar earned in revenue by a productive state above some average mean predetermined by the Grants Commission is redistributed away in diminished GST receipts. In an income tax system that redistributed away every dollar above the average wage, that would be seen as an incentive-sapping and anti-productive disaster. And so it is with the extremes of the present equalisation system. All welfare systems that become too extreme ultimately fail those they are meant to help by encouraging poor and unproductive decision making at a state level.
Finally, to the many people who have supported me—my old friends, the campaign team, my parents, my wife's parents and the redoubtable members of the WA Liberal Party—I know that you have not helped place me here for the statement of your names. But, rest assured, every late night and early morning in service of Pearce is also meant as a small repayment of the huge debt that I owe to you all. To the Premier of Western Australia: Colin, I thank you for your forbearance and friendship during my own agonised decision making. Finally, to my wife—I am perhaps a bit slow to give my wife public compliments but, as Ray Charles said, 'Wake up, boy, because a girl like that ain't going to wait all night.' So here is my compliment to my wife. Jennifer, if I were told that it were within my power to go back to the 1970s to watch Dennis Lillee bowl again at the WACA, that I could take all my friends, that Sir Isaiah Berlin and Han Solo would be special guests and that James Reyne would do an acoustic set during the lunch break, but that the one catch was that you could not attend with me, then I would not bother, and you and I could go to the Yanchep Beach lagoon with the dog. So my compliment is: Jennifer, all the good things are nothing special without you.
Madam Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I support the motion before the House.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Moore, I again remind the House that this is the member's maiden speech, and I ask again that the same courtesies be extended to him as have just been extended to the member for Pearce.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (15:48): Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak for the first time, I offer my warmest congratulations on your election as Speaker of the House. I look forward to serving with you as a member of the Speaker's panel. I refer to Her Excellency's speech on opening day, in which she said:
There is no limit to what Australia can achieve, but only if we respect the limits of government, as well as its potential.
The challenge for the Australian government is to foster a strong competitive environment by reversing overregulation, addressing the factors which increase the costs of doing business in Australia and reforming the industrial relations system to increase workforce participation and productivity. The development of strong policies for the business sector in the areas of corporate governance, financial services regulation and industry are required to promote the economic development of our nation.
I thank the electors of Moore for entrusting me with the responsibility of acting as their representative. It is a great honour and privilege to represent my constituents in federal parliament. I humbly accept this responsibility and pledge to serve by doing my very best in carrying out my duties. Moore is a coastal electorate located in the northern suburbs of Perth, with the city of Joondalup as its major regional hub. The electorate includes pristine beaches, three marinas and a national park. It has leading educational institutions, diverse businesses and advanced medical facilities. Employment self-sufficiency remains a major issue in the electorate, as daily commuter traffic congests arterial roads. To alleviate the situation, it is vital to progress the Neerabup industrial area. By cutting the red tape which has delayed the project, timely planning and environmental approvals will deliver up to 20,000 new jobs. In addition, development projects in central Joondalup and at the Ocean Reef Marina will boost commercial activity. The coalition has a plan for creating 2 million new jobs nationally, and the electorate of Moore stands ready to deliver its share of this target.
Within Moore, world-class research and development projects are being developed at Edith Cowan University. I look forward to being part of the Abbott coalition government which will implement policies to promote the commercialisation of Australian inventions and technology, harnessing the economic benefits of intellectual property developed in Australia. As the third largest hospital in Western Australia, with 650 beds, Joondalup Health Campus provides the state's busiest emergency department and a private hospital wing, as well as a clinical school to train future doctors, nurses and health professionals. I am an advocate for the expansion of the hospital facilities to provide a greater range of specialist medical services.
I am the eighth member for Moore since the electorate was first proclaimed in 1948. It was named after George Fletcher Moore, the first Advocate-General in Western Australia in 1834.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr Mal Washer, who served in this parliament for 15 years and with whom I have had a very close association. A medical practitioner and avocado grower, Dr Mal Washer is highly respected within the local community and revered by his peers from both sides of the House. Dr Mal is well known for expressing his point of view and standing up for his beliefs and values. He has always been generous, supportive and a great mentor. I have some very big shoes to fill.
I am a first-generation migrant to Australia, arriving as a nine-year-old with my parents on 8 December 1984, exactly 29 years ago yesterday. The Goodenough family has a very rich history dating back to the United Kingdom. The Domesday Book of 1086 records my ancestors as landowners in the shire of Cumberland. Over the centuries, members of the family provided loyal service to the Crown through the clergy and military and in banking, before migrating eastwards during the 19th century with the expanding British Empire.
The Goodenough name often attracts comments and light-hearted puns. In 1809, my great-great-great-great-great grandfather, the Reverend Samuel Goodenough, Bishop of Carlisle, delivered a sermon to the House of Lords which gave rise to the epigram of the time:
'Tis well enough that Goodenough
Before the Lords should preach;
But, sure enough, full bad enough
Are those he had to teach.
Bishop Samuel Goodenough is buried in the north cloister of Westminster Abbey, and his descendants spread the family across the globe.
My extended relatives arrived in Australia during the 1800s. Police Trooper Henry Goodenough was present at the Eureka Stockade uprising in 1854 and is documented as a key witness for the Crown in the subsequent court trial. Commodore James Graham Goodenough served as Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Naval Station, residing at Admiralty House, Kirribilli, from 1873 until his death in 1875 whilst on duty. He is buried in the historic St Thomas Cemetery in North Sydney, and Goodenough Island was named in his honour.
My branch of the family were among the early British settlers in the colony of Singapore in the 1800s, who pioneered thriving enterprises in the bustling colonial outpost. Prosperity came to an abrupt end on 15 February 1942 with the fall of Singapore and subsequent Japanese occupation, an event described by Churchill as 'the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history'.
My family endured three decades of hardship following the end of the war as Singapore struggled to rebuild. I was born 30 years after the end of the war, and I recall the latter stages of the recovery, characterised by ramshackle housing, unsealed roads, poor sanitation and very basic utilities in certain areas. This was an invaluable experience growing up because it provided me with an appreciation of what we have today. Through hard work, resourcefulness and the sound values instilled in us by our parents and grandparents, my cousins and I have managed to rebuild.
My grandparents' war stories of daily survival in occupied territory—in particular, my favourite story of them concealing from the Japanese, in a grave in the dead of night, Lee-Enfield rifles and bayonets—instilled in me the importance of marksmanship, defence, military service and the alliance with the United States of America, which liberated my family.
It was a very sentimental occasion to be sworn as a member of parliament on the Bible which my grandmother gave me 30 years ago, in 1983, just prior to migrating to Australia. This bears testament to my lifelong Christian faith in the Anglican tradition.
Upon arriving in Australia in 1984, I attended Leederville Primary School, and later I attended Aranmore Catholic College, graduating as dux of the class of 1992. Leaving high school, I secured a job as a trainee accountant at a well-known firm of chartered accountants, Hendry Rae & Court, studying for my commerce degree at Curtin University by night. Through the firm I met former Premier Sir Charles Court, a great Western Australian who inspired me to be industrious and enterprising. I then joined the Liberal Party, working my way up as an office bearer and election volunteer. I later worked as the accountant for an engineering business, subsequently purchasing a shareholding in a company which supplies pipe fittings to the commercial construction and mining industries.
I know firsthand what it means to be in business—to employ staff, to stock inventory, to comply with regulation, to take commercial risk and to be responsible for balancing the books. I have personally experienced the decline in Australian manufacturing due to rising costs, declining margins, and regulatory burden. Venturing into commercial and residential property development, I similarly experienced the obstacles to business development caused by overregulation.
A former Australian Prime Minister once said in the 1990s that one should not aspire to hold public office until one has washed one's hands in Solvol. Not many people know what Solvol is, let alone have washed their hands in it. It is a metaphor for bringing working values and practical, shopfloor experience to public life. In my case, there is always a supply of the industrial detergent in my factory and at my farm. I bring to this parliament valuable industry experience and will always remember the needs and aspirations of the people whom I am elected to represent in this place.
My first foray into public life was in the Town of Vincent Council elections as a 22-year-old, in what is considered a Labor stronghold. I lost by over 260 votes. I learnt from the experience and, undeterred, I contested the City of Wanneroo elections.
I have been actively involved in the community, including as a board member of Peter Moyes Anglican Community School, for nine years. I look forward to using my local government experience by working cooperatively with the Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo in advocating for federal government support for key infrastructure and services in our region.
The greatest challenge facing Australia in the 21st century is increased international competition from emerging economies in our region. In a globalised economy with free trade and mobility of investment capital across international borders, a nation's economic performance will determine living standards. Over the next decades, Australia will face unprecedented competition for resources and energy as populations seek to improve their standards of living. We will be competing with billions of people who value education and are prepared to work long hours to produce, earn, save and invest to get ahead economically. Those nations which fail to produce as much as they consume will fall behind into greater levels of debt.
Only through responsible fiscal management—by getting the budget under control—can we reduce the burden of national debt irresponsibly incurred over the past six years, and only through effective monetary policy can the Australian economy forge ahead in a low-inflation environment. In order to maintain Australia's place in the global economy we must capitalise on our strengths in primary, secondary and tertiary industry. We must support agriculture and fisheries by developing robust policies that support primary producers, so ensuring our long term food security and biosecurity.
Our government must implement policies that support the mining, resources and energy industries across the nation—and in particular in my home state of Western Australia, where iron ore, minerals, and natural gas are leading export earners for the nation. A coalition government will invest in infrastructure to support these industries and remove the burden of the mining and carbon taxes. A coalition government will actively work to develop trade and investment relations, that are in the national interest, with countries not only in the South-East Asian region but also the United States of America and in Africa, Europe and beyond.
We will also act to protect our borders and maintain our sovereignty. At a time when countries in our region are increasing military spending, it is essential to maintain a strong Australian Defence Force—not as an aggressive action but to protect our rightful place in the region. I am a strong supporter of the Australia-United States Alliance in terms of both defence and economic issues.
As a proud Western Australian, I am a federalist who believes in preserving the rights of the states which formed the Commonwealth at Federation. The Commonwealth must ensure equitable funding arrangements for all states, including my home state of Western Australia. In particular, the declining share of revenue from Commonwealth-based taxes such as the goods and services tax and royalties needs be addressed as a priority. Western Australia may represent 10 per cent of the Australian population, but it accounts for more than 46 per cent of national export income and 16 per cent of gross domestic product.
The remoteness of and the tyranny of vast distances in Western Australia make for costly infrastructure to support these industries. I make the case for a review of Commonwealth funding arrangements and for increased investment in infrastructure in Western Australia which will, in the long term, create economic development and return more taxation revenue for the Commonwealth.
I have a vision of building an Australia of the future based on the principles of democracy, meritocracy, and national unity drawing upon the motto 'e pluribus unum', which translates from Latin as 'from many, one'. From many cultures and origins there must be one united Australian national identity. Australians from all walks of life must unite with a common purpose of building a strong nation with a robust economy that is able to provide for the wellbeing and defence of its citizens.
In doing so, as a nation we must address the issues of multiculturalism and reconciliation, whilst preserving the fundamental character and values of Australian identity. These complex social processes are by necessity two-way streets. There has to be a degree of give and take to promote a balanced approach to the competing goals of diversity, assimilation and integration in our emerging national identity. From my own experience I can attest to the value of interacting with people of different cultures and fully participating in my local community.
Well-connected and networked individuals benefit from a greater understanding of different cultures and exposure to wider opportunities for advancement. Australians should be proud of the British heritage of our country—the Westminster system, our public institutions, modern agriculture, industrial production, technology and a service economy—all of which have delivered the society and lifestyle which we enjoy today. We must never allow the significance of this heritage to be diminished.
It does not matter how long one has been in Australia—whether just a few years or 40,000 years—or from which country one has originated. What matters is what one does in Australia—one's character and commitment, the achievements accomplished and the contribution made to our country. What is needed to succeed in Australia is a positive attitude and a strong work ethic.
Having personally visited the poorest and most marginalised Australians, 2,000 kilometres north of Perth, and seen first-hand the living conditions and hopelessness, I realised that the job of reconciliation will not be complete until these forgotten people, and many like them in remote communities across Australia, are embraced by our society.
Reconciliation will only be achieved when several questions are asked. When was the last time you invited an Indigenous person to your home? When was the last time you shared a meal with an Indigenous person? When was the last time you employed an Indigenous person? The answers to these questions are: 'I do it regularly.'
True reconciliation cannot be achieved with words or a document. It can only be achieved with real actions. Reconciliation must be practical, material and tangible. In this parliament we have the opportunity to push the boundaries of reconciliation and multiculturalism and set forth a movement that includes Australians of all backgrounds in a national understanding that unites us all.
I would like to pay tribute to the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party, to state director Ben Morton and the team at Menzies House for running a professional campaign. In particular, I acknowledge my home division of Moore. To my campaign team and over 400 branch members and volunteers who helped me during the election, I thank you. It was a collective team effort. I could not have done it without your support.
To my parents, Reg and Mary, thank you for the values you have instilled in me; your hard work, commitment and guidance over the years has led me to where I am today. You taught me to be hard working, self-reliant, and a contributor to society. To my closest friend, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, thank you for your steadfast loyalty and encouragement over many years. Similarly, to the Hon George Cash, former President of the Western Australian Legislative Council; thank you for guiding and mentoring both Michaelia and me in our formative years.
I thank my state counterparts the Hon. Rob Johnson, the Hon. Albert Jacob, Jan Norberger, the Hon. Peter Katsambanis and their respective wives for their friendship and loyalty over the years. Also, I thank the honourable members for Curtin, Sturt and Groom, and Senator Mathias Cormann for assisting me during the campaign.
There are too many names to mention, for risk of omission; however, in particular, I must thank Tony Brooks, Councillor James Limnios and the Limnios family, Mayor Tracey Roberts, Mary Anglin, David Anson, Marlon Lockyear, Dev and Pat Naidu, Kevin and Sue Fairman, David and Cindy Harding, Miles Wood and my cousins based in Australia, Clyde, Sean, Garrett, and David Goodenough.
I thank all members, senators, and staff of the parliament for warmly welcoming me into this place and helping me to settle in over the past few weeks. Madam Speaker, in closing, I dedicate myself to the service of the people of Moore and our great Australian nation through my service in this parliament.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013
Consideration of Senate Message
The SPEAKER (16:11): I have received a message from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has considered message No. 2 of the House relating to the bill. The Senate does not insist on its amendment to which the House has disagreed and has made a request for an amendment in its place and has made further amendments to the bill, as indicated by the annexed schedule. The Senate requests the House to make the amendment in place of the amendment disagreed to by the House and requests the concurrence of the House in the further amendment made by the Senate, signed by the President of the Senate.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (16:12): I take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Moore for his fine maiden speech. I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to the House's consideration of the Senate message relating to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013:
(1) the message being considered immediately;
(2) the House considering the Senate's request for an amendment;
(3) the House considering the Senate's further amendments; and
(4) on conclusion of the House's consideration, a message being sent to the Senate advising it of how the House has dealt with the request and further amendments.
Question agreed to.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced.
Senate’s requested amendments —
(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 5 to 11), omit the items, substitute:
1 Section 5
Repeal the section.
2 Subsection 51JA(2)
Omit ", disregarding stock and securities of the kind mentioned in subsection 5(2),".
3 After subsection 51JA(2)
Insert:
(2A) In working out the total face value of stock and securities for the purposes of subsection (2), disregard:
(a) stock and securities issued in relation to money borrowed under the Loan (Temporary Revenue Deficits) Act 1953; and
(b) stock and securities loaned by the Treasurer under a securities lending arrangement under section 5BA of the Loans Securities Act 1919, or held by or on behalf of the Treasurer for the purpose of such an arrangement; and
(c) stock and securities invested under subsection 39(2) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997; and
(d) stock and securities on issue as at the start of 13 July 2008, other than Treasury Fixed Coupon Bonds.
Note: The time referred to in paragraph (d) is when item 4 of Schedule 1 to the Commonwealth Securities and Investment Legislation Amendment Act 2008 commenced.
4 At the end of section 51JA
Add:
(5) For the purposes of this section:
(a) the face value of a Treasury Indexed Bond is taken to be its face value at the time it was issued; and
(b) the loan of stock or a security is taken to include an arrangement under which it is sold and repurchased.
(2) Title, page 1 (lines 1 and 2), omit "amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911, and for related purposes", substitute "remove the limit on stock and securities on issue, and for other purposes".
(3) Page 3 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 2—Amendment of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998
1 At the end of clause 2 of Schedule 1
Add:
Additional statements about Commonwealth stock and securities
(7) In certain cases where the face value of Commonwealth stock and securities on issue has increased by $50 billion or more since a previous report or statement under the Charter of Budget Honesty, the Treasurer is to table a statement setting out reasons for the increase (see Part 9).
2 Subclause 3(1) of Schedule 1
Insert:
Commonwealth stock and securities means stock and securities on issue under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 (the CIS Act) or the Loans Securities Act 1919 (disregarding stock and securities of the kind mentioned in subsection 51JA(2A) of the CIS Act).
debt statement, for a report under Part 5 or 7, means a statement that includes:
(a) the following information about Commonwealth stock and securities on issue, atthe time of the report and for the financial year to which the report relates and the following 3 financial years:
(i) the value of the stock and securities (including their market and face value, and their value as a proportion of gross domestic product);
(ii) the total expected interest expenses relating to the stock and securities; and
(b) a breakdown, by maturity and timing of interest payments, of Commonwealth stock and securities on issue at the time of the report.
3 At the end of subclause 12(1) of Schedule 1
Add:
; (f) a debt statement.
4 At the end of subclause 16(1) of Schedule 1
Add:
; and (c) contain a debt statement.
5 At the end of subclause 24(1) of Schedule 1
Add:
; (e) a debt statement.
6 At the end of paragraph 26(a) of Schedule 1
Add:
(v) the information required by paragraph 24(1)(e); and
7 At the end of Schedule 1
Add:
Part 9—Additional statements about Commonwealth stock and securities
33 Additional statements about Commonwealth stock and securities
(1) This clause applies when the actual face value of Commonwealth stock and securities on issue has increased by $50 billion or more since whichever of the following last occurred:
(a) a budget economic and fiscal outlook report, a mid‑year economic and fiscal outlook report or a pre‑election economic and fiscal outlook report was publicly released;
(b) a statement under this clause was tabled.
(2) The Treasurer is to table in each House of the Parliament, within 3 sittings days of that House after the increase referred to in subclause (1), a statement setting out the reasons for the increase, including the extent to which any of the following contributed to the increase:
(a) lower than expected revenue;
(b) higher than expected spending;
(c) capital purchases;
(d) grants to State and Territory governments for infrastructure.
8 Application—statements under clause 33 of the Charter of Budget Honesty
Clause 33 of Schedule 1 to the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 applies in relation to a report referred to in paragraph (1)(a) of that clause that is publicly released on or after the commencement of this item.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (16:13): I move:
That the requested amendment be made.
The government has agreed to the proposed amendments by the Greens to repeal the statutory debt limit and amend the Charter of Budget Honesty Act to improve transparency regarding government debt. We have worked together to resolve this issue and provide certainty to the markets about the government's capacity to finance the budget and ancillary debt. We have done this with no thanks to the Labor Party. They created the debt. They have done nothing to find a credible solution to us approaching a binding debt limit of $300 billion. It is just that their legacy is debt that well exceeds $400 billion. Today we are removing the instrument for parliamentary brinkmanship that was introduced by Labor—in fact, by the member for McMahon back in 2008—when they created a legislative limit on debt of $75 billion. So they created the debt, they created the debt limit and now they are trying to prevent us from dealing with their problem. In fact, they are making it worse.
Labor had to increase the debt limit three times, so they introduced a $75 billion limit and said they would never get there, and they did. Then they introduced a $200 billion and they said they would never get there, and they did. Then they introduced a $250 billion limit and they said they would never get there, and they did. Then they introduced a $300 billion limit and brought down a budget that had peak debt of $370 billion, and then tried to prevent us from dealing with it. It was an artificial construct. It was never intended to be a target, but it did end up being a target under Labor. And congratulations to Labor; they hit the target every time.
We have a clear plan to fix the budget and to start paying down Labor's debt. It involves getting rid of the mining tax and associated expenditure of over $13 billion, and we will take that off the debt. We have a plan to get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and that immediately prevents us from proceeding with further debt-raising to finance an operation that involves a total of $10 billion of borrowed money.
Even the Labor Party, which have become pious in opposition—not that they were particularly pious in government—have proven just how hypocritical they are. They are seeking to oppose their own savings, which they took to the last election, including $2.3 billion of savings associated with the higher education proposal to fund the Gonski education initiative. The tax cuts that they announced would not be necessary because they were terminating the carbon tax they now want to proceed with. So Labor are not only asking us not to continue with our initiatives, they are voting against their own initiatives, which are all about trying to live within the means.
Today we have also agreed with the Greens on a number of measures to enhance transparency around government debt reporting in the budget papers. In particular there will be a debt statement published in every budget, every Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and every pre-election economic and fiscal outlook.
Mr Danby: In bed with the Greens again.
Mr HOCKEY: I will come to that in a moment. These debt statements will include information about Commonwealth stock and securities on issue at the time of the report for the financial year to which the report relates and for the following three financial years. They include: the value of Commonwealth stock and securities, including their market and face value and their value as a proportion of GDP; the total expected interest expenses relating to the stock and securities; and a breakdown by maturity and interest payments of the stock and securities on issue at the time of the report. An additional debt statement will also be published should debt increase by $50 billion or more since the last debt statement or additional debt statement was made. These additional debt statements would set out the reasons for the increase in debt, including the extent to which the increase was caused by lower than expected revenue, higher than expected spending, capital purchases and/or, alternatively, grants to state and territory governments for infrastructure. In addition, debt statements and additional debt statements will facilitate a parliamentary debate on government debt. At a minimum a debate will be held twice a year and more often if debt is increasing at a rapid rate.
We commend the Greens for coming to the table with sensible proposals to enhance transparency. Before the member for McMahon gets up to speak I would just remind him of his own words in relation to dealing with the Greens. When he said on Saturday, 'Sitting down and doing a deal with, of all people, the Greens,' he was criticising us. Madam Speaker, I seek an extension.
The SPEAKER: Under standing order 1 interventions and speeches are limited to five minutes. You are at liberty to seek the floor again if there is no-one from the other side.
Mr HOCKEY: I seek the floor again.
The SPEAKER: Granted.
Mr HOCKEY: The member for McMahon is a cracker. The member for McMahon, in 2010, said: 'The Greens are a party who have a very clear policy objective but also a party that you can sit down and discuss policies with.' That is what he said in 2010. And how about this, he said: 'We go into discussions of a very intense nature with the minor parties and there is often brinkmanship to the last minute, but we have found the Greens accommodative to good policy.' So the member for McMahon is the complete hypocrite in any judgement. He is out there saying that it is absolutely ridiculous—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will withdraw that.
Mr HOCKEY: I am sorry; I am just giving him a free character assessment.
The SPEAKER: Just withdraw 'hypocrite'.
Mr HOCKEY: Hypocrite? He contradicts himself on a regular basis.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: You just asked the Treasurer to withdraw and he did not do so, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Yes, I did. I would ask the honourable Treasurer to withdraw.
Mr HOCKEY: I withdraw. The member for McMahon contradicts himself on a regular basis with no underlying principle. He criticises us for doing a deal with the Greens when, in fact, he has recommended doing a deal with the Greens in the past.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chifley.
Mr HOCKEY: This is the same member for McMahon who does not know the difference between net debt and gross debt. Come on! He was actually Treasurer just for a few days, but he does not know the difference between net debt and gross debt. I thought it was a bit of a slip of the tongue; like the time he came into this place and described the Chinese currency as the yen.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Yes, he did. I know it is hard to believe, but he did. I thought it was just a bit of a slip of the tongue and I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he did come into this place and talk about the debt limit applying to net debt, but I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. I tried with this man; I really tried. Then, when he wrote to me and said that he was going to distribute it to the whole world and talked about net debt being subject to the debt limit, he did not know the difference between net debt and gross debt. I thought, hang on, this guy is not fit to run a tuckshop let alone to run an economy. And, as we know, the member for Watson is over there preying on him.
What we do know is that when it comes to credibility the Labor Party has none. Do you know why they have no credibility? Because they have no principles. Not only do they vote against our savings, they vote against their own savings. Not only do they not know the difference between net debt and gross debt, they created the problem and they are trying to stop us from fixing it. That is the Labor Party way. Here is a tip for a new opposition: you actually have to be a little bit consistent. You actually have to believe in something. I know you believe in debt. I know the Labor Party believes in debt; I know the Labor Party believes in racking up the credit card.
You save him, Tony—good idea. He needs your help like he needs a bullet in the head.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer should be speaking through the chair. He is making terrible allegations against you, unless he is speaking through the chair.
The SPEAKER: I think I can avoid the effrontery, but I would ask the honourable the Treasurer to speak through the chair.
Mr HOCKEY: I will tell you what: there is no way on God's earth the member for Mackellar would do anything other than act responsibly when it comes to debt, handling debt and paying down debt, because the member for Mackellar knows, like every other member who is mature about this sort of debate, that you do not play Russian roulette with a loaded gun when it comes to debt. The Labor Party has been playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun and it has gone bang in their face, because they have been dealt out of the equation by, of all people, the Greens. Now the Greens are proving to be more middle-of-the-road, more responsible, than the Australian Labor Party who have consigned themselves to somewhere way past the Democrats at the bottom of the garden; they have buried themselves along with their lack of credibility when it comes to handling the economy. I would say to the Labor Party: one day, for just one day, have some integrity, have consistency, have some principles—actually, do us a favour and stick to your election promises, especially when it comes to paying down your debt.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (16:24): 'Stick to your election promises when it comes to paying down the debt.' The Treasurer just said it himself. Apparently the Australian people got it wrong, because when they heard the now Prime Minister and the now Treasurer say, 'We'll pay off the debt,' as one of the three fundamental promises, what they really meant was, 'We'll vote with the Greens to get rid of the debt limit.' Remember the Prime Minister on the Bolt interview—and the Manager of Opposition Business very correctly pointed out to the House that you have to work really hard to get a bad interview as a Liberal Prime Minister on the Bolt show—where he said, 'We'll keep the promises we made, not the promises people think we made.' Apparently a promise the people think the Liberal Party made was to pay off the debt. The promise they really made was to vote with the Greens—the economic fringe-dwellers, as the Prime Minister explained—to actually abolish the debt limit, which the then opposition voted against increasing twice, in 2009 and 2012, despite the Prime Minister of Australia standing at that dispatch box and denying it, saying 'We never voted against increases to the debt limit.' They twice voted against increases to the debt limit in this House and/or the other house.
What we are seeing today is the hypocrisy of a party which is voting with another party, which they described as economic fringe-dwellers—those are not my words; they are the Prime Minister's words—to get rid of Australia's debt limit. This is a Treasurer and a Prime Minister who said before the election, 'We have a budget emergency on our hands.' And what have they done since? The Treasurer has given $9 billion to the Reserve Bank—
Mr Hockey: Given!
Mr BOWEN: Yes, that is right, Treasurer; that is what you did. He storms out of the chamber, shaking his head. The fact of the matter is that he has given $9 billion to the Reserve Bank, which increases this year's deficit and increases our interest bill by $1 billion over the next four years. He borrowed money and gave it to the Reserve Bank. They watered down Labor's tax integrity measures and made changes to support people with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts. Those are this government's priorities—all things which increase the deficit and increase the debt. So what do we see? We see the Treasurer asking for an increase in the debt limit, first to half a trillion dollars. That was his first act, and he acted surprised and hurt that the opposition did not just say, 'We know you said you'd pay off the debt, but, if you want half a trillion dollars, that's all right.' No—it does not work that way. What happens is: you have to justify it. On each occasion when the former government asked the House for an increase to the debt limit, it was justified by a budget or an economic statement—on every single occasion. Not once did the member for Lilley, the then Treasurer, come into the chamber and say, 'By the way, I need an increase in the debt limit and I'll show you the figures later'—not once, because that is the wrong thing to do. You justify yourself to the parliament by releasing the midyear economic forecast and a statement, but what we see is the new Treasurer saying, 'I need half a trillion dollars and I'll show you the paperwork later.' Australia's biggest no-doc loan—that is what the Treasurer wants.
The Treasurer found that he could not get that through the parliament because the Greens' position then was that an increase of $200 million was not justified. Now their position is that we do not need a debt limit at all. So the Greens have had a change of position over the last few weeks. That is okay; political parties are allowed to do that. But the biggest change of all is from the government, which told the Australian people solemnly that they would pay off the debt. The Treasurer had a chance to explain. He said, 'You've got to let us fix up the mess,' as he calls it; 'You've got to let us fix the debt.' So his position is: 'We've got to get rid of the debt limit to pay off the debt.' He has not explained the internal inconsistency in that little equation: 'We've got to pay off the debt, so we'll get rid of the debt limit.' Well, I think there are Liberal voters around Australia scratching their heads, thinking: 'Is this really the government we voted for? Is this really the government that promised to pay off the debt and said that we are open for business; the same Treasurer who showed that we are open for business by knocking back a foreign investment application—
Ms Rowland: The national interest.
Mr BOWEN: in the national interest—and who said, 'We need more foreign investment, so I'm going to knock this one back,' to paraphrase the Treasurer? The Treasurer is a cracker. He said, 'We need more foreign investment, so I'm going to knock one back, and we need to pay off the debt so we'll get rid of the debt limit.' This sort of stuff catches up with you, and it will catch up with the Treasurer, because he seems to think it is a matter of pride that they are voting to get rid of the debt limit. He is very proud of it and the fact that he has done a deal with the Greens. He thinks that is an achievement for him. I beg to differ. I think it shows a complete lack of integrity on behalf of this government. (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:29): I rise to speak in support of these amendments to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act, which have their genesis in amendments moved by the Greens in the Senate. They will lead to a more sensible discussion about debt in this country. I was listening very closely to what the member for McMahon said. Far too often in this chamber, now and over previous years, we have seen the unfortunate case of Labor trying to out-Liberal the Liberals, sometimes on refugees and in this instance on debt. Every time that Labor try and turn the issue of debt or the issue of refugees to their political advantage, it comes back to bite the progressives. There can be no clearer instance than with the issue of debt.
In the last parliament, every time the question of debt came up we watched the opposition, as they then were, stand up and berate the government about the level of debt that had been incurred. In all of that there was not one single sensible argument about why it was that we had that debt in the first place. Of course there was a thing called the global financial crisis and there was a need to borrow to spend to ensure that Australia did not go into recession. The Greens supported that because it was the right thing to do. As a result, the country incurred debt. Even after incurring that debt, Australia still has a remarkably good position in OECD countries on both net and gross debt.
Separately, if you come from the progressive side of politics then generally you would think it is a good place to mount the argument that governments, especially the Australian government at the moment, should be quite happy to take advantage of the relatively cheap money that is on offer at the moment to borrow to fund the infrastructure that this country needs to set itself up for the 21st century. Maybe instead of having pieces of legislation that say maybe we will or will not do something about high-speed rail in five or 10 years time, we could actually get on with the job of building it—if people were prepared to have a sensible discussion about debt. In part because of the creation of this artificial debt limit which Labor supported, we end up in this situation where we miss having a sensible discussion about debt and, instead, all debt is apparently evil.
Anyone will tell you that there is a difference between the mortgage and the credit card. If you are borrowing to fund some long-term infrastructure, to fund something that at the end of the day is going to be useful to you, or if you are borrowing in the short-term term to meet some speed bumps or some even bigger challenges like we saw in the global financial crisis, then that is a good thing. But if what you are doing is extending the credit card limit just to meet your expenditure, then it is not a good thing. Most people would understand that and that is the discussion we need to have with the Australian people. If we routinely beat each other over the head about a number without any sensible debate over what the money is actually being spent on we are going to get into the worst discussion in this country. Ultimately, if and when Labor gets back into power, it is going to hurt them even more. I suspect there are many on the Labor side of politics who are quietly happy that this has happened because they know that when they get back into power it will make their life easier—if they choose to stop trying to out-Liberal the Liberals and instead say, 'Yes, it is a good thing to borrow to fund the infrastructure that this country needs.'
I am very proud of the transparency measures that we have secured, and they are timely too. As we head towards the budget, what is clear from the national account figures that have been released is that as mining investment comes off the boil there are many places in Australia and sectors in the Australian economy that are now reliant on government spending to keep them going. Now we have removed one of the last hurdles in the way to the Treasurer stimulating the economy, there will be no excuse for savage budget cuts in May, and we will not support them.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:34): It has become clear this afternoon that the Treasurer bear hugs the Greens that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection rejects. On one day we have on one side of the chamber the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection rejecting the Greens and talking about all the heinous things the Greens do. The minute those opposite need to get a deal through they suddenly welcome the Greens with open arms and cannot believe that they have got the opportunity to do this type of deal. It is unbelievable for the Greens to think that this will lead to a bold new era of transparency. I would hate to actually have them, by their own actions, reinforce the view that that they are economic fringe dwellers—but their own actions will do that if they think this government is committed to transparency.
There was a simple proposition extended by us to those opposite, to those in government, which was we will support an increase in the debt ceiling to $400 billion. If those opposite want to go beyond that then be transparent, table MYEFO and let the public know the state of the books. That was the simple test of transparency that they refused to meet. When will they table MYEFO? They will table it next week. When? After the Australian parliament goes into recess for the break. The Greens are all after transparency but not if it actually involves the most official document, which is MYEFO.
This is not really about transparency, this is not about being upfront, this is not about having a conversation—that well worn phrase—with people about debt; this is about one thing and one thing only. It is about Joe Hockey, the Treasurer, avoiding coming back here to explain that all the bravado and all of the bluster that they engaged in pre-election cannot be matched by post election performance. They are unable to demonstrate why, when they said that if debt is the problem then more debt is not the answer, they cannot deliver a strain of logic that actually says why this is the case.
While the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer has to sit here on his own, defending the case of the government, it is very hard—and I am sure he could come up with lots of reasons. In fact, I reckon he could come up with 93 reasons that could try and help him justify this deal to the parliament! He is unable to, because they all know, with a red face—
An opposition member: Don't pick on Barnaby.
Mr HUSIC: I will not pick on the agriculture minister. But, frankly, they know what we know and had to deal with for quite some time: national incomes across the globe are contracting. Economies are not growing. Monetary policy is not giving the same kick that it once did. As a result, budgets come under pressure—as ours have for many years, and as they know theirs will, which is why they will not release MYEFO. So, in an effort to avoid actually admitting to people that their bluster before the election on surpluses—because remember, Madam Speaker, those on that side of the chamber made a commitment that they would get to surplus in one year—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: One year, they said, Member for McEwen. They said they would get to surplus in one year. And when did they ditch that promise? They ditched it in the quiet of January this year. When no-one was really paying attention, they moved away.
Mr Bowen: They meant 'one year' like 'one day'.
Mr HUSIC: One year, one day—
Ms Rowland: Like dog years!
Mr HUSIC: Exactly—it gets measured in a quantum that we mere mortals cannot understand! But they have been dragged to economic realism, and yet they will not be up-front with people about the reasons they need to increase the debt ceiling. It is outrageous that, in this last-ditch effort, as the shadow Treasurer indicated, their way of getting rid of debt is to lift the debt ceiling. It is preposterous logic. It does not sit at all well with the rhetoric used before the election, and they should be explaining fully why they are going to this position. And they should not just back it up with words. They should back it up with the numbers contained in MYEFO, and they should do it this week.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:39): It is quite extraordinary to stand in this debate on the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 and to have listened to the contributions from Labor members opposite on how debt was a problem under the coalition and how the Australian people needed to be vigilant and on guard, and how it was in the national interest for the Australian Labor Party to stand opposed to the deal that is being done between the coalition and the new economic centrists—certainly, relative to the Labor Party—the Greens! Members of the public up in the gallery were probably scratching their heads as they heard the Australian Labor Party start to lecture the Australian people on the dangers of debt. This is the Australian Labor Party! Let us not ever forget the track record of Labor, because if you had only tuned in to the last 10 minutes you would have thought: 'Well, they seem reasonable. The solution to debt is not more debt—that seems to be a reasonable comment to make.' And if you did not know that the Australian Labor Party was the party that presided over the most significant deterioration in Australia's debt position in our history, and if you did not know that the Australian Labor Party inherited $45 billion of net assets and turned that $45 billion into a mountain of over $400 billion worth of debt, you might think they had a skerrick of credibility. But, in a continuation of form for the Australian Labor Party, we know that they will say absolutely anything if it happens to suit their argument at any given point in time.
I heard the shadow parliamentary secretary turn around and make comments about how the coalition was being dragged to economic realism and I heard him start to criticise the coalition, saying that we promised there would be a surplus. Again, if I cast my mind back, it was only about six months ago that we heard the Australian Labor Party promise, on over 600 separate occasions, that they were going to deliver an economic surplus. We recall the way they completely bastardised the Australian company tax collection system when they turned around and said, 'We're going to change from quarterly PAYG to making sure that it is paid monthly.' Why did they do it? They did it for one reason and one reason alone: the Australian Labor Party did it because it was all part of their phoney campaign to try to get back to surplus. And after Prime Minister Rudd, and Prime Minister Gillard, and Prime Minister Rudd, and Treasurer Swan, and Treasurer Bowen, we saw the Australian Labor Party left in a situation where, after promising on over 600 occasions that they were going to deliver a budget surplus, they actually delivered a nearly $31 billion deficit.
The Australian people are not fools, I am pleased to say. They see straight through this lot opposite. And I am very pleased to stand on the track record of the coalition, time and time again, because our track record—and I say this for the benefit of the members opposite—is a good track record. We have paid down Labor's debt before and we will pay down Labor's debt again. And if that means that we have to take hard decisions, and if that means that we have to make responsible decisions, then the coalition will always step up to the plate. That is the reason the Australian people thoroughly rejected the Australian Labor Party at the last election. They rejected you because they know you will say and do anything, members of the Australian Labor Party. These kinds of silly games from the Australia Labor Party just underscore why the Australian people know that the cupboard is bare when it comes to genuine policy decision making.
So I say to the Australian Labor Party: get with the times. It is a bad strategy, Australian Labor Party, when you are outflanked in the centre ground by the Australian Greens. So if that does not send you a message, members of the Australian Labor Party, I do not know how on earth you are ever going to get the message. But I would say to you: the signs are there. You do not need a crystal ball to gaze in; you do not need to try to read the tea leaves. All the signs are there, members of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian electorate rejected you. You have got a mountain of debt of over $400 billion. And now you have the Australian Greens being the sensible centre. So read those cryptic clues and see what you can come up with. (Time expired)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:44): I was loath to raise a point of order while the member for Moncrieff kept failing to refer his remarks through the chair, because I do enjoy that speech from the member for Moncrieff. I enjoyed it the first time I heard it and I have continued to enjoy it on each subsequent occasion that we have heard that speech. The thing that we hear time and time again, in the refrain from everybody on that side, is that they are not doing what they told the Australian people they would do. We went through that debate last week with respect to education. We go through that debate repeatedly in the vast gulf between what the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection promised and what he is doing now.
But I do not think there is an example more clear to the Australian people than when the same people who were railing against debt and railing against deals with the Greens then do a deal with the Greens for unlimited debt. I do not think you can get a quinella quite like that when it comes to what is being done by the government. I heard one of my favourite lines from the member for Moncrieff in his speech and I enjoy it every time he gives it. He says that they have to 'make the hard decisions'. Unlimited debt is hardly a hard decision. Unlimited debt is avoiding future hard decisions. Unlimited debt means they are just going to remove any level of public restraint and debate into the future. Then they say how proud they are that they managed to do a deal with the Greens.
I am disappointed, obviously, to see that they have been so willing to jump in and team up with the Greens. When the House divides on this motion, we will see the Greens sitting side by side with members of the coalition, and that is a decision for them. But for those opposite to pretend that it was really hard to get the Greens to agree with unlimited debt is really missing the point of basically every public debate that we have had on debt issues over the last few years. What is not lost on the Australian people is that the Prime Minister himself said that you should not do cheap and tawdry deals with the Greens. Well, I concede that this one might be tawdry, but it ain't cheap. There is nothing cheap about this deal at all. Those opposite told people that they would turn around the figures and start delivering surplus—they would shift from deficit to surplus. If you go to surplus, what occurs? Debt starts to go down. Yet they, on the economic pathway they have now chosen, know that they are heading down a path where, under their government, debt year on year will become higher. That is the pathway they have chosen and that is why the action they have taken now is for debt to be unlimited. Unlimited debt is the pathway that those opposite have chosen.
They are so desperate to say that, even though it has happened since they have been in office, the continued increases are somehow Labor debt. Those opposite need to recognise: they are in government now, which means what happens on their watch is their responsibility. As debt goes up, it becomes their responsibility. The final record that was the responsibility of those on this side of the House was reflected in the pre-election fiscal outlook. The Charter of Budget Honesty, which Peter Costello used to back in and which those opposite used to support, did not require the figures to go to a half a trillion dollars. But there is nothing like the hypocrisy of going from bringing the debt down, to needing it to go to half a trillion dollars, to then saying, as those opposite do, that they want debt to be unlimited.
As the shadow Treasurer held up that ad last week, I think it struck a chord with people when they could see next to the Prime Minister the words that he would reduce the debt—and now we have the sheer hypocrisy of their not merely saying they will not reduce it and not merely saying they want to take it to a half a trillion dollars but saying the sky is the limit. Unlimited debt is now what those opposite want, which is the exact opposite of what they told the Australian people they would do. On issue after issue, be it education, their handling of immigration issues or debt, they are a government who say one thing and do the exact opposite. (Time expired)
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (16:49): The last thing this House needs is a lecture on budgetary matters from fiscal pygmies. That is what those people on the opposite side are: they are fiscal pygmies. They are the group who have taken this country from being in the black to facing an absolute fiscal nightmare after five to six years. We are the ones trying to clean up this mess. Each and every day we open a cupboard to another budgetary skeleton. Those people sit over on the other side of the chamber with a great sense of commitment to their cause, when we are the ones trying to clean it up.
They slid money out of education and spent three to four years of the infrastructure forward estimates in the first year, leaving nothing in the cupboard. They then come to this place and, even after the evidence of officials from Treasury at Senate estimates, refuse to accept the fact that we need to increase the debt ceiling. We would not need to have this debate right now if the Labor Party had decided to do what was in the best interests of the country, upon the advice of senior officials, and taken the debt limit to the $500 billion that was proposed. But, no, they want to take advantage of the political environment. They want to be political opportunists. They want to do absolutely anything they can to be economic vandals. They continue to be economic vandals in this place and it is an absolute disgrace. So do not lecture us on debt. Yours is the party that has taken us into fiscal oblivion.
We are comfortable on this side of the House with the Charter of Budget Honesty and the agreement that has been made between this side of the House and the Australian Greens to get us through this period. We have no qualms with that because we have nothing to hide. When it comes to the Charter of Budget Honesty, we have nothing to hide. You are the guys who are absolutely useless when it comes to managing Australia's finances.
They are the party that after six years took a country with money in the bank and no interest payments on debt to one now with in excess of $400 billion in debt and $10 billion in interest payments. They think it is funny, but it happened on their watch. It happened on their watch in six short years. They need to admit the fact that that is what occurred.
Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I seek to intervene.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the member for Braddon willing to give way?
Mr WHITELEY: No. The debt limit is a construct of the Australian Labor Party. Let's not forget that this was brought in in 2008. Let's keep in mind that at that point we had no debt, as a legacy of the Howard-Costello government. We had money in the bank. We were in a super position fiscally. In 2008 the Australian Labor Party came to this place on the back of the perception of a new superhero fiscal conservative in Mr Rudd—and what did we see? The first debt limit was set at $75 billion. Then they asked, 'Mr Bank Manager, can I have more?' It then went to $200 billion. Then they asked, 'Mr Bank Manager, can I have more?' It went to $250 billion. It went on and on. Thank goodness the Australian people spoke so loudly on 7 September and said, 'Enough is enough. We need to get the finances of this country back under control.'
What is absolutely ironic about this is that at the start of this whole process, when this bill was first introduced by the Treasurer, those on the opposite side were offered briefings. They refused to have them. The dead giveaway, when the Treasurer was bringing this matter to a conclusion today with his speech earlier, was that the accused, the shadow Treasurer, could not face the prosecutor. That is always a dead giveaway. He sat there. He twirled in his seat. His eyeballs rolled around in their sockets. He could not look the Treasurer in the eye. The Treasurer nailed him. The shadow Treasurer left a massive black hole. He left skeletons and black spiders in every cupboard. We are here now to declare, 'We will clean up the mess.' But those opposite should not stand in our way. The Greens have come to an agreement with us to make sure that we can continue to pay the bills when the time comes in the very near future. It is about time that those on the opposite side woke up to themselves, because they are nothing but economic pygmies.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:55): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [16:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER (17:06): The question now is that the requested amendment be made.
The House divided. [17:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. BK Bishop)
The SPEAKER (17:09): The House will now consider the Senate's further amendments. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the Senate's further amendments together.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (17:09): I move:
That the further amendments, including an amendment of the title, be agreed to.
Madam Speaker, if you ever needed a more clear demonstration of how the Australian Labor Party have dealt themselves out of this debate, of how the Australian Labor Party have lost any credibility at all when it comes to this debate, then you just saw it when the Greens and the two Independents walked to this side of the chamber. By walking from there to this side of the chamber, they demonstrated that they were willing to put economic orthodoxy on the table. It stands in contrast to the new economic fringe dwellers, which is the Australian Labor Party.
I have heard members of the Australian Labor Party claim repeatedly that they could not understand why the debt ceiling of more than $400 billion needed to go. They did not understand why there needed to be a debt ceiling of $500 billion, which was of course the first call that the coalition made. The reason—and it is really not that complicated—is that, as was attested to by members of the Australian Labor Party, peak debt under Labor was forecast to reach $370 billion. We know from the tabled Australian Office of Financial Management minute that you need a $60 billion buffer. Let me go very slowly through it for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party: 370 plus 60 equals 430. I will break it down again: 370 plus 60 equals 430. So there you go, Madam Speaker, there is the great riddle that the Australian Labor Party cannot work out.
When the Australian Labor Party say with their hands on their heart, 'Oh, we only want it to go up to $400 billion,' let them now understand why. It is because 370 plus 60 equals 430. So I say to the Australian Labor Party that is the reason your $400 billion was nothing other than a political gimmick and that is the reason we walked away from it. When we could not get any agreement from the Australian Labor Party, we spoke to the Greens—and guess what? The Greens were the sensible ones who were willing to recognise the best way forward and what was clearly in Australia's national interest.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CIOBO: I now hear Labor members opposite repeatedly making remarks, 'But that's not until 2016.' The extraordinary thing is that Labor still does not get it. They still think it is acceptable to simply kick the can down the road.
Mr Danby interjecting—
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will desist. The member for Deakin will also desist.
Mr CIOBO: Labor still thinks it is acceptable to say: 'We'll deal with that down the track. We don't want to deal with it now.' I say to members of the Australian Labor Party that that might be how Labor governs but that is not how the coalition governs. That is not our approach. We are not prepared to kick the can down the road. We want to deal with the issue once and we want to deal with it in a way that provides certainty to the economic markets and that does not invite in the kind of Tea Party politics that the Australian Labor Party so warmly embrace.
I never really thought that the member for Melbourne Ports would necessarily be someone who would embrace Tea Party politics, but he is. Like all the members of the Australian Labor Party, he is willing to jeopardise Australia's national interest on short-term political opportunism. So, for that reason, we were willing to talk to anybody else who was willing to put the national interest first. Lo and behold, the Greens were willing to put Australia's national interest first—and that stands in contrast to the Labor Party.
What the Senate has proposed and what we have agreed on with the Greens is a number of measures to enhance transparency around government debt reporting in the budget papers—in particular, there will be a debt statement published in every budget, in every Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and in every pre-election economic and fiscal outlook. In addition, the debt statements will include information about Commonwealth stock and securities on issue at the time of the report for the financial year to which the report relates and for the following three financial years; the value of the Commonwealth's stock and securities, including the market and face value and their value as a proportion of GDP; the total expected interest expenses relating to the stock and securities; and a breakdown by maturity interest payments of the stock and securities on issue at the time of the report. An additional debt statement would also be published should debt increase by $50 billion or more since the last debt statement or additional statement was made.
The amendments that have been put forward are good amendments. The Senate recognises these amendments in a spirit of putting Australia's national interest first, of advancing our national interest and of providing certainty and stability, which stands in contrast to the juvenile approach that we have seen from the Australian Labor Party.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:14): What an extraordinary contribution from the member for Moncrieff. We have heard it about four times already in this debate. Frankly, taking a lecture from those opposite, particularly from the member for Moncrieff, on political obstruction and opportunism is like taking a lecture from Ronnie Biggs on train safety. It really is. Their approach in the 43rd Parliament was to say no to everything. Even when it was consistent with their own policy, they said no to everything. They said no, whether it was about assisting the government to find savings through measures like putting an indexation on the private health insurance rebate—they talk about debt; well, they could have done some things when we were in government to assist in dealing with the issue of debt—or whether it was, as the member for Melbourne Ports has pointed out so many times, their belligerent approach when it came to the people transfer agreement with Malaysia. So taking a lecture from those opposite on the issue of obstructionism is really a little bit too much to take.
This bill, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013, is an extraordinary bill, which is why members on this side of the House cannot support it. It is extraordinary that the members on that side of the House would be speaking in favour of it, because, not three months ago, they were all standing in front of billboards and waving pamphlets around, saying, 'We will reduce the debt.'
Dr Leigh: Where is the debt truck now?
Mr STEPHEN JONES: Where is the debt truck now? The government members have gone from being the party of no debt to the party of no debt limit. I cannot understand why they are willing to stand there and speak in favour of this bill. It is Buzz Lightyear economics: 'To infinity and beyond!' We are all looking for Woody to make an appearance in this debate! They have only got themselves to blame. They would like to sheet home all of the blame to us on this side of the House, when we did the right thing by the country and we did the right thing by the parliament during the global financial crisis. Yes, we were willing to put the budget into the red to ensure that businesses stayed open and that people stayed in work. It was the right thing to do by the economy. It was the right thing to do by the nation. We got no assistance from those opposite, yet they come in here and complain to us about obstruction.
We might be able to take them a bit more seriously if, when they came back into government, they had done the right thing by the budget. But what was their first act? What was their first act when they came back into government? It was to give an $8 billion gift to the Reserve Bank. That is right—an $8 billion gift to the Reserve Bank, no strings attached. Yet they come in here and they complain about debt. Well, there is a fair bit of debt that was racked up on their own watch. They have only got themselves to blame.
From looking at what is in the chute, we believe the debt is actually going to get worse. What have the government's first acts been, on regaining the treasury bench? They have given a tax hike to low-superannuation earners and a tax cut to high-superannuation earners—an increase for high-superannuation earners. They have denied themselves a revenue stream. They like to take the fun out of the minerals resource rent tax, which is a growth tax: the tax increases when profits increase and decreases when profits are flat. But one of their first acts in government is to bring a bill into parliament to reduce the government's capacity to raise revenue in the future. It would seem that, if you want a tax cut in this country today, you have to own a mine. You can see where their priorities are. In fact, if you want help with your school expenses, your name has to be George Brandis. You can see where their priorities are and who they are looking after.
Those opposite puff up their chests and talk about the great deal that they have been able to do with the Greens. You can see how tough those negotiations must have been, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta! 'Dear Senator, I'm here; I want to ensure that we have no brakes on debt into the future, no debt limit.' You can imagine that that negotiation went on for weeks and weeks! We on this side of the House oppose the legislation. It is the right thing to do by the country.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (17:19): In August this year, the then opposition leader, Mr Abbott, launched a stinging attack on the Greens political party. He said they had 'fringe' economic policies. When asked about his decision to put the Greens party last in all Liberal preferences, he said he was making a 'captain's call'. Mr Abbott said:
There is a world of difference between the Greens and as far as I'm aware just about everyone else who is contesting this election … because everyone else in this campaign supports economic growth and supports a more prosperous economy.
He was then asked, if he disliked the Greens so much, whether it had been a mistake to preference the Greens over Labor in 2010, thereby ensuring that the current member for Melbourne won that seat. Mr Abbott waved his hands and said:
That was then, this is now.
And 'that was then, this is now' is a good summation of where we have ended up in this debate. Back then, the Greens were 'fringe economic dwellers' that were on the extremes of Australian politics. Now we see the Greens literally sitting on the front benches in a division moments ago. Back then, if debt was the problem, more debt was not the solution. Now it turns out that an uncapping of the debt limit is exactly what Australia needs; the right medicine for Australia is unlimited debt! We are seeing what I think is best summed up in the words of Mr Abbott himself:
… a litany of betrayals, of broken promises, of disappointed hopes …
If, before the election, the then opposition had gone to the people and said, 'We think that the real problem is debt and our policy is going to be to strike a deal with the Greens to remove the debt limit,' I think people would have voted a little differently.
Of course, it is not the only broken promise that we have seen from this government. They have been in office for only a matter of months, but already we have seen them break their promise to bring down a budget update within 100 days. We might not have needed to have this debate at all if that promise had not been broken by the Treasurer—if that 100-day limit had not been broken. We are now pushing into December, a period well beyond where Labor ever went in releasing the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We have seen the government breaking their pledge that no public servants would be fired, breaking their pledge that there would be no adverse changes to superannuation arrangements, breaking their pledge to the schoolchildren of Australia that they are on a unity ticket in education and breaking the pledge that there would be a boat buyback. It is passing strange that just before the election Mr Abbott said, in an interview with the doyenne of the Press Gallery, Michelle Grattan:
… you should move heaven and earth to keep commitments … and only if keeping commitments becomes almost impossible could you ever be justified in not keeping them … And I suspect the electorate would take a very dim view even in those circumstances.
Let us apply Mr Abbott's test to what has happened today. Is it impossible not to keep the opposition's pledge to bring down debt? Not at all. The Labor Party would have been very happy to support a $400 billion debt cap which allows a $30 billion buffer in 2016-17, when debt is expected to peak. But, if the government believes that the situation has changed—if they believe that debt is peaking higher—then they can bring down the budget update and be very clear with the Australian people about what has shifted. Has the $9 billion to the Reserve Bank—the thimble and pea trick which says, 'We'll give you $9 billion now so that we can pull out a bigger dividend later—had an impact? Has the $17 billion of tax cuts to mining billionaires and big polluters had an impact on the budget? It is important that the people of Australia are not put in the position of Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey suggesting that this is somehow Labor's debt. The people of Australia are entitled to see whether the budget has deteriorated in this government's time in office. We have seen disappointing consumer confidence numbers out today suggesting that all is not well under this government. We have seen closed economy decisions on foreign investment— (Time expired)
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (17:24): In response, I would like to speak about the fact that it is Labor's debt, and I would like to discuss where it came from. It is very clear to me that the money has already been spent. This is the reason the debt cap needs to be increased and, as the amendment has come back, to be deleted—to have no debt ceiling. Quite simply, the money was spent on things like school halls. I have been to many locations, up to 100, where the school hall was replicated side-by-side with one which they already had. When I said, 'Why do you have a second school hall exactly the same as the other one?' they said, 'We were told we had to spend the money; we didn't have a choice.' That is not the way we do business on this side of the House and it is certainly the way business should not be done, but I will give them some credit. In areas like Tara, Miles and St George, where there was absolutely nothing, where there was no local community facility, there was some benefit. But in the many hundreds of coastal locations there were literally thousands of replications, whether they be libraries or other BER projects. The very first school project I went to I said to the construction company, 'Are you sure this cost $2 million?' They said, 'Absolutely: design and construct project,' I said, 'How many do you have?' They said, 'Ten,' I said, 'What do you have to do?' They said, 'Same again.' I asked, 'What about the design component?' They answered, 'That's fine; we covered that in the original quotation, no problems at all.' It cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Just because somebody sends your credit card in the mail, that does not mean you necessarily have to fill it. Just because we have an option to use the money, that does not mean that we are going to spend it. We are not the United States. This is Australia, and this is the Australian parliament.
I sat in this place in recent weeks as a new member of the House. I continue to hear from those opposite how they represent the union movement. I am more interested to hear what it is that they intend to do for their electorates. Over and over they say that they represent the unions; that they represent the workers. I find it absolutely outrageous that they would indicate to those on this side of the House that they do not fairly represent all people because I am a worker. That is exactly where I come from. I hold a trade qualification. I work on a farm. I also have a degree in engineering. I represent people equally. That is why we are here and that is why I am on this side of the House and sit with the Nationals—because the Nationals are for regional Australia. That is what we are about.
I would like to talk briefly about a gentleman called Craig van Rooyen, who is an immigrant to this country. He came through with the correct process. It took years to arrive and they work hard. They have a lychee farm in my electorate of Hinkler. They were the people who broke the story on backpacker cheques. You may recall a story in The Australian during the election campaign. Mr van Rooyen came to me and said, 'How is it possible that I have a cheque for a backpacker who has not worked at this location for two years, yet they get a cheque for $900?' That is an absolute waste, yet it continues.
The house insulation scheme: as an electrician I think it was criminal. People lost their lives because of that project. They should be very careful about what it is that they put forward because it was clearly poorly-planned. There was evidence provided to people in this place, and they knew that over and over people with no training were put at risk in areas where they should not have been—and some lost their lives. It is time that people on this side of the House recognise that those opposite are not interested in what we do for Australia. What we do here is in the best interests of all people in our electorates—not just union members, not just workers but all people in the electorate. I look forward to the process where this legislation goes through the Senate and we can get on with the business of running this country.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (17:29): There are many examples of this government saying one thing before the election and doing something completely different after the election. There are plenty of examples we could point to, but nothing is more stark than this, where before the election the government said they were going to reduce debt. They went around telling everyone they were going to be responsible and reduce debt. Then, not more than four sittings weeks in, they are asking this parliament to pass an unlimited cap on debt—no debt ceiling whatsoever.
The now Treasurer said during the election campaign that he would like to ensure there was less debt and that more debt does not reduce debt. It seems kind of odd for him to change his tune within four sitting weeks. I imagine that the Australian people are scratching their heads. Before the election he said, 'Reduce the debt,' but after the election he says, 'Give us a licence to have as much debt as we possibly can.'
I think the Australian people would be scratching their heads not only over that backflip but also about the Liberal Party now courting the Greens for their economic policy. Before the election, there was a lot of criticism on any occasion that the Greens voted with the Labor Party, despite the Liberal Party voting with the Greens on numerous occasions—for example, to trash the Malaysia solution, which was a responsible solution in relation to asylum seekers. In public, with their megaphones, they were saying, 'Don't trust the Greens. The Greens have irresponsible economic policies.' Indeed, Tony Abbott described the Greens as the fringe dwellers of economic policy. But today we see once again the Liberal Party doing a complete U-turn and courting the Greens to support their irresponsible economic policy.
Let us be clear about why we are in a position where the Liberal Party have had to court the Greens. It is because the Greens and the Liberal Party actually do not want to talk about where the debt is coming from. All Labor asked was, 'Just be honest—why do you need this increase?' Since the election, we have had the Liberals spending a lot of money in a lot of areas. They are secretly spending it—in terms of the Reserve Bank—and not wanting to be transparent with the Australian people about where the debt is coming from and why they now need unlimited debt. Into the future, they also want to continue hiding and not come back to this parliament to report on why they need more debt. So it is not surprising now that we see the fringe dwellers—I am talking about what Tony Abbott called the Greens—getting on with the Liberals and voting for this.
But we still see the Liberal Party having an incoherent economic message. We see them wanting to abolish the debt ceiling while at the same time refusing to recognise why the spending was required during the global financial crisis. They fail to recognise that the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, received the 'world's best Treasurer' award for the way he dealt with the global financial crisis, ensuring that Australians kept on working.
While it was the priority of the previous, Labor government to put jobs at No. 1, over the last few days we have seen constantly that the Liberal Party will refuse to put jobs at No. 1. They are happy to see jobs in my electorate and in my state of South Australia, and indeed in the southern states and right across Australia, go by the wayside. This government has no narrative. Increase debt, but do not focus on jobs. Jobs are not a critical component for this government. They refuse to protect jobs in this economy.
I call on the government to reconsider this. It is irresponsible and the hypocrisy is quite rank in terms of their dirty deal with the Greens. (Time expired)
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (17:34): It is time that we reflect on financial management. I am not here to cast aspersions across the House about whose fault it is. Let us have a look at where we are and how we got to this point. There was a time not that long ago when Australia was not in debt. We walked into a financial crisis globally, and there was an argument for a legitimate stimulus package. But now the challenge is how we lift ourselves up into the future.
Debt has a place. It has a place in business. I have run a small business and I have used debt. Debt can be constructive, but it can also be an inhibitor. The question is not so much whether we want to increase our debt limit; the question is, 'What are we doing it for?' and then working out what we are going to do into the future. We have a situation where we have to walk a balance between a level of austerity and a level of confidence in the Australian economy. I am a strong believer that debt can play a part, but I am also a strong believer that a government should send a signal to its population that it can live within its means. Our ambition as members of the new government is to live within our means to send a signal to the Australian people that our government can live within its means.
However, in the very short term we find ourselves in a situation where we will need to invest and drive productivity across the country, and doing that is going to require capital. It is going to require capital that is not just going to come from the tax revenues of Australians; it is going to require some foreign capital, and that is the reason we have had to expand the debt limit. To have this argument that somehow the coalition government is not, in the long term, going to live within its means and that, therefore, asking for an increase in the debt limit means the government is going to go from a $300 billion debt to a $500 billion debt and then just keep racking it up, I think, misses the point. The point is that governments need to ambitiously aim to spend the taxpayer revenue effectively. They need to ambitiously aim to live within their means. But there are times when we are turning the corner that we need to keep a level of confidence in the economy and we need to borrow. This is the reason.
When looking at whether the coalition government should have done a deal with the Greens, the situation was this: the argument that we were going to hit the debt ceiling of $300 billion and go through it did not appear to be resonating with the Labor Party. They had a political imperative and saw that they could somehow score some points here. We put the argument to the Greens that there was a practical imperative here and that we needed to borrow more money to keep confidence in the economy and after that we could begin the process of living within our means and eventually paying back that debt. But this is a long-term project. This is not something that is going to happen in one year; it is going to take a number of years. I hope that both sides of the political sphere will see the sense in that.
Anyone in small business knows that there are times that you have to borrow. But there are always times when you have to pay it back. This is a time when we need to cut through that threshold. But our ambition and our stated aim—backed by our past history as a coalition government through the Howard years—is to pay back the debt. But we have to instil confidence in the Australian economy to do that.
This is good fiscal management. It is not about scoring points and playing political games; it is not about saying, 'You racked up debt'; 'We didn't rack up debt'; 'You can't be trusted'; 'No, you can't be trusted.' This is about what is in the best interests of Australia. We have challenges ahead. We have a slowing global economy. We have to make sure that we have a high level of confidence. To do that, we will borrow. But our stated aim is to get back to a situation in which the total expenditure of this government is less than the total tax revenue. Hopefully, some common sense will be seen on both sides of the House, and particularly on the Labor Party side, about the reason we needed to make that deal. The challenge is immense. But with strong fiscal management we can do it. Debt has a place. But ultimately debt has to be paid back.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:39): The position taken by the government in this debate is utterly bizarre and, I must say, somewhat hypocritical, because some 3½ months ago, those opposite were gallivanting around the country campaigning vehemently against debt. They were saying that the debt level in Australia was much too high. They were driving around with a big truck with numbers ticking over saying that this country's debt was ticking up every minute and every second and it was out of control, when in fact the situation was that Australia had a very reasonable level of debt and one that was the envy of most of the Western world and most advanced nations when comparing it to their fiscal positions.
It is a fact that Australia has a level of debt. But we need to be conscious of why we have a debt position at the moment. It is because in 2007 the world was hit by the global financial crisis. Australia was not immune. We are an open, global based economy. We were affected by the global financial crisis. It affected growth, it affected consumption and, most importantly, it affected projections for growth within our economy. There was a very big risk that Australians would be forced out of work and that small businesses would be affected, as has occurred in Europe—and we have all seen the carnage that has been wrought by debt crises in Europe—and in the United States. But the Australian government acted swiftly and decisively to prime our economy to ensure that demand continued. To do that, we needed to take out a level of debt. That debt was spent on productive infrastructure and on creating and protecting jobs in our economy.
Examples of that productive infrastructure are well known in my state of New South Wales. If you drive up the Pacific Highway, you will go past the Bulahdelah bypass being built. That is a road construction job that will improve the productivity of the Pacific Highway. You will drive through the Kempsey bypass, the world's longest continuous road bridge. That was built during the period of the previous Labor government using a level of debt. You will go past the Ballina bypass. That was again built during the reign of the Labor government using a level of debt. And you will go past the Woolgoolga, which is being built at the moment. They are all good, productive pieces of infrastructure that are building and growing our economy and creating jobs. That is what the debt was devoted to in our economy. While Labor was government, those opposite were saying that that was an irresponsible position to take. They like to airbrush out of history the effect of the global financial crisis on the Australian economy and the job that Labor did in projecting jobs and building productive infrastructure.
The reason Labor is taking the position that it is taking in this debate is that those opposite have done not one thing to justify the increase in the debt and indeed the removal of the debt ceiling. Picture this: a married couple go into a bank to consult their bank manager. They say to their bank manager that they would like to increase their mortgage, not by a small amount but by 65 per cent. The bank manager says: 'Gee, that's a large increase. Can we see some of your figures? Can we see your income? Can we see records of your current level of debt? Can we see records of any personal debt that you may have—credit cards or any personal loans? And can we see some records of any assets that you own that might be collateral?' And the couple say: 'No, we're not going to supply you with any of that. We just want you to provide us with a 65 per cent increase in our mortgage.' That couple would be laughed out of the bank. And that is exactly what the government is asking the Australian people to do by attempting to increase the level of debt without the proper checks and balances.
On the latest figures that were produced by Labor when in government, gross debt was forecast to peak at $370 billion in 2016. That is why Labor has taken a position of supporting $400 billion worth of debt—$370 billion with a buffer. It is up to those opposite to justify the increase that they want to the Australian public, which to date they have not done. That is why Labor has taken this position.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (17:44): We have heard some common sense uttered in this chamber in this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Moncrieff, certainly had some good comments to make about why we need to increase the debt ceiling. We have just heard from the member for Hinkler and the member for Mallee. Both made some very good, practical and reasonable comments on why we need to increase the debt ceiling.
We have also heard hypocrisy writ large. We heard that from the member for Kingston, who went on about jobs. Nobody in this chamber is not focused on creating more jobs. But in the last parliament all we ever heard about was the Labor Party protecting their own jobs. Their whole focus was on who would be Prime Minister, who was going to stab whom in the back—it became the focus of the whole 43rd Parliament.
We just heard the member for Kingsford Smith talking about the infrastructure projects that Labor allegedly got on with in the 43rd Parliament. I will admit there were some good infrastructure projects but—certainly in my electorate—there was far too much focus on buying back productive water. He also talked about the Pacific Highway. It is my understanding—and I think I am pretty right here—that under previous coalition governments the split between Commonwealth and state governments was 80:20, but under Labor it became fifty-fifty. So there was more emphasis on the state governments providing that fifty-fifty amount of money, whereas we only required a small input from the state government. We should not politicise the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. It is something that we as governments just need to get on with. Whether the split is 80:20 or fifty-fifty, we just need to improve that road so that people can get on with the business of driving from Queensland to New South Wales without the threat of driving on a goat track—and that is what it is.
We are getting on with the job of having a commission of audit, and we are getting on with the job of a strategic review into the National Broadband Network, because they are necessary. It has been 20 long years since we have had a commission of audit, and it is necessary. The commission is going to assess the current split of roles and responsibilities between state and federal governments, and that is necessary to avoid areas of duplication. It is also necessary to look into every way we can save money, because of the debt and deficit left to us as a legacy from Labor. Under its terms of reference:
The Commission is asked to review and report on the extent, condition and adequacy of Commonwealth sector infrastructure and, if found to be deficient, factors that may have contributed to the current situation and possible remedies.
That is necessary. And it is going to report back to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, something that was not done under Labor—there was no consultation; they just went out, squeezed the life out of the money for the Pacific Highway, bought far too much productive water out of the Murray-Darling Basin and held no cost-benefit analysis into the NBN. Who in business goes into a deal without making sure their money is going to be well spent? No-one does that but Labor, because of lot of them have not been in business, a lot of them have never had to worry about where their next income was going to come from because they have had this history of being in trade unions and this history of coming up through the staff ranks. Not that there's anything wrong with that: unions have a place and there have been any number of political staffers who have become good, contributing members of parliament.
But I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that sometimes it is good to also listen to those with a world of experience—either in having had a job, having been an employer, or having had to sniff the oily rag and not know where the next dollar was going to come from, or having been in business, or actually having had the responsibility of making sure families could have a future next week and the week after. Not too many of the Labor members who I looked across at when they were in government had that experience, and it is so necessary.
It is so necessary also for us to have this debt ceiling of $500 billion, because of the legacy of debt and deficit that we inherited from Labor. With that, I move:
That the question be now put.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The question is that the motion be put.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (18:01): The question now is that the further amendments, including the amendment to the title, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
The House divided. [17:54]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott)
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (18:02): On indulgence, earlier today in my personal explanation, I referred to an allegation of a conversation between myself and what I said was the chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition. I was obviously referring to the chief of staff of the Prime Minister.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (18:03): My election to the seat of Melbourne Ports was hard fought. I was proud of the hundreds of local volunteers, party members and even a small international brigade who helped me and the Labor Party to defend the seat of Melbourne Ports, which I can proudly announce to this House we have now held for the past 100 years. An election where one's party goes from government to opposition is obviously not an ideal outcome—I think that qualifies as English understatement. However, I am pleased to report that a closer look at the result in Melbourne Ports reveals a positive picture for the Labor Party. With the fourth smallest swing against the Labor Party of any of the 19 seats we hold out of the 32 in Victoria—the best record in Australia—Melbourne Ports has remained the sixth most marginal Labor seat in the state. It is the same position as we were last time. The swing should be viewed in the context of a 5.1 per cent swing against Labor in Victoria. Overall, the summary is that our result bucked the trend of the wider election. It was a satisfying result for me and a reflection, I believe, of all of the local issues and local work that has been done in the electorate.
In this response to the Governor-General, I wanted to address some of the outcomes, concerns and problems of a wider nature that face Australia following this election. In my view—and I think people on both sides of this House might feel the same—there is now an over-representation of micro-parties in the Australian Senate, which some people say now resembles the bar room scene in Star Wars. Fifty-three official parties contested this year's election. This is more than double the number of 2010 and it includes such curious new parties as Coke in the Bubblers and the Australian Smokers' Rights Party.
Today I wish to highlight a significant development, little noticed by media but more evident in my electorate than anywhere else in the country. That is the rise of early voting. Of all of the people who voted in Melbourne Ports, fully 41 per cent voted before the election on 7 September, either by postal voting or pre-polling. All across Australia, over 20 per cent of people voted before the federal election. A mixture of a single polling booth open for early voting in each electorate and postal voting has pushed this phenomenon to record heights. In Melbourne Ports we had the highest rate in the country. Of eligible voters in the seat, 35,000 either pre-polled or postal voted, barely 50,000 voted on election day and 8,000 did not attend. Because of our high Jewish population, we have traditionally had a number of people who were unable to vote on Saturdays and have postal voted. But we also have a highly educated and mobile population, many of whom travel interstate and overseas for work. This year it was the highest ever. I said 'barely 50,000', but it was actually 49,327 votes that were cast on election day. Another 10 per cent of registered voters did not vote at all. This means that less than 49 per cent actually voted on election day.
The big jump in early voting was reflected across the country. Three million people had already voted before the polls opened on 7 September—up from 2.5 million at the 2010 election, itself a record over 2007. This year 1.3 million applications for postal votes were received. There were also 1.8 million pre-poll votes cast in the specially designated booths we have in each electorate. This means that more than 20 per cent of the roughly 14 million votes at the federal election were cast before election day. Having spent the better part of three rather damp and windblown weeks out the front of the Melbourne Ports early-voting centre braving our famous changeable late winter weather, I can personally attest to how early voting reorientates the focus of election campaigns.
Australia, of course, is not alone in this trend. The United States has seen early voting become a political football. The rules in relation to pre-polling in the United States vary from state to state. That is another reflection of less than ideal democratic practices, even in one of the world's greatest democracies. In 1992 only seven per cent of votes were cast early, but in 2008 that number had risen to 30.6 per cent. Of course, the President voted before election day at this election, as he announced.
For campaign strategists the main issue with early voting is the need to get the message out. Millions of dollars were spent in advertising in the last week of the campaign, but, due to early voting, the return to all political parties was less and less. I think it is also an important indicator of the significant changes in the way our society is operating. Legislative and administrative changes have probably had the largest impact on early voting, but it would be foolish not to recognise that changes to the way society functions are also leading to the disintegration of the Saturday voting ritual. People are less willing to waste leisure time; they are more often interstate or overseas and they want to maximise the amount of time they have. People still want to participate, but postal voting or early voting is becoming a norm.
One of the unsung triumphs of the last parliament was the reversal of the deliberate tactic of allowing hundreds of thousands of Australians to drop off the electoral roll. I used to refer to this, in the last parliament, as the increasing democratic deficit that we faced. Between 2010 and 2013, Special Minister of State Gary Gary was able to pass legislation potentially to re-enfranchise the 1.5 million eligible Australians who by that stage were off our electoral register. In the last few months before the 2013 election, 280,000 Australians had their democratic rights restored.
Compulsory voting—and I strongly adhere to the Australian system—with people being asked to sign their name off on election day, is not a high price for citizens of this country to pay. If we start from this point, then, logically and rationally, we need to ensure that every Australian has the ability to vote by being enrolled. Prior to the passing of last year's Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill, the parliament was not doing enough to ensure this. This amendment corrected one of the great overreaches of the previous Howard government, who, in their hubris, had control of the Senate. Just as they passed Work Choices, they passed amendments that made it difficult for more and more Australians to enrol. But this was not something that was only done during that period. Over a period of years, people had slowly, salami style, been cut off from the electoral roll.
All MPs understand the previous process, where, if people had moved, they had to respond to snail mail from the Electoral Commission to confirm their new address. It was calculated, in my view, that the voters who would be disenfranchised through these restrictive means were more likely to be left of centre than conservative voters. As a result of these restrictions, the amendment was passed that would affect the 1.5 million people who were off the roll. An estimated 15.7 million Australians were eligible to be enrolled but only 14.2 million were actually enrolled. Therefore, the amendment was very important. The main reason fewer and fewer people were enrolled was that the only way that people were able to get back on the roll after a change of address was via the post. There was no electronic means, and the Electoral Commission, even though they knew people had changed address, were not able to place them at their current address on the roll. More and more people fell off through this inefficient process.
Now there are two databases that are recognised by the Commonwealth government which can match addresses and they are able to enrol people at their new address. Of course, it is up to people to say if the information is incorrect, but the cross-referencing of information now gives the Electoral Commission people's current address. This is part of the normal system in both New South Wales and Victoria. The New South Wales and Victorian Liberal governments support this. It is hardly a conspiracy, as some of the members of the Liberal-National Party opposition, during the time of the previous government, used to rail about.
People, as I said, travel and are sometimes not available on election day. Young people, especially, respond less and less to post. People change addresses. Few people make a deliberate decision not to enrol. Most of those who are not enrolled have failed to enrol out of ignorance or forgetfulness, as we can see from the last-minute rush of enrolments whenever an election is announced.
From the 2013 election we have statistics which demonstrate that our changes have started to work. Whereas 1.5 million eligible people were not enrolled at the 2010 election, despite an increasing population, at the 2013 election only 1.22 million people were un-enrolled. In other words, an extra 280,000 voters had been added to the electoral roll.
Leaving aside the missing vote drama in Western Australia, one of the factors in this election that we need to focus on is the gaming of the system by people who are using the practice that was developed after 1983-84 to allow people to vote '1' in the Senate according to a party ticket. This has resulted in the rise of micro-parties, and is an issue that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters needs to examine. It is hardly a sign of a vibrant democracy, in my view, that parties which are created three or four months prior to an election, and have received less than half of a per cent of the vote, get seats in parliament. It was certainly not the idea behind the 1983-84 changes which allowed voters just to vote '1' in the Senate. That was designed to reduce informality by allowing people to vote according, say, to what the National Party had set as their party ticket—or as what the Liberal Party or Labor Party had set.
We then had people getting together a group of micro-parties which then cross-preferenced each other, to make sure that the major parties were excluded. They used popular names—say, the Motoring Enthusiast Party—and then swapped preferences between micro-parties. In my view—this is a rather controversial thing for a member of the Labor Party to say—it would have been better for Australian democracy if the Liberal Party No. 3 candidate in the Senate, Helen Kroger, had been elected to the Senate spot rather than some extravagant character from Victoria, whose only notoriety so far has been his relationship with the throwing of kangaroo poo.
These changes need to be examined by this House. Some have suggested optional preferential above-the-line voting as a way to go. I am not sure that that would address the issue of informality. I think you would start to get informal voting because of the large numbers of political groups that are above the line. Perhaps we could address the issue of informality by saying that you only have to vote for your first six preferences. Seats won by the Motoring Enthusiast Party and the Australian Sports Party respectively would have gone to Liberal Party and Labor Party candidates and would have been, in my view, a better reflection of the Australian people's first preference votes.
In having an optional preferential voting system we would be fundamentally changing the method of voting in our democracy. With optional preferential voting we would see a fundamental shift towards a first-past-the-post result—that is why I am very cautious about it—where the voices of any parties rather than the two dominant parties would be drowned out. Would this benefit my party, as one of the two dominant parties in the system? Absolutely—yet, I cannot look at selfish political gain when the cost would be silencing the voices of minor parties and the plurality of political opinion that makes this country great.
Is it worth making these significant changes when there are alternative ways to prevent the gaming of the system without such electoral cost? At this stage I believe more modest changes should be enough to prevent gaming of the system by micro-parties. Some changes have been suggested by people such as Professor Brian Costar, the well-known professor of political science. He has suggested raising the amount of money that a political party needs to register before the election, and insisting that there is a constitution and a list of 500 or 1,000 members. All of these things need to be addressed. Perhaps the requirement for membership could be increased to having 2,000 voters, and a $20,000 nomination fee, which would be returned if the party scored above a certain percentage of the vote.
Proper proof of membership of political parties should be made available at the request of the Australian Electoral Commission. It is not good enough that someone turning up in a shopping mall four months before an election and signing a petition should be recognised as having joined a political party. As I said, I endorse the proposals of Professor Brian Costar to deal with this undemocratic over-representation of micro-parties at forthcoming elections. The 1984 changes were brought in to address the issue of informal voting. The changes allowed voters to follow party tickets by simply voting '1' above the line. These reforms were not intended to be devices for micro-party operatives to game the Senate voting system. I am afraid that that is precisely what is happening.
I am convinced this House will seriously examine these issues. We have a great deal of experience in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. Despite the reputation of politicians in the media, a great deal of work is done together for the sensible advancement of Australian democracy. We have one of the best political systems here in the world. We do not have hanging chads. We do not have different ways of voting, by state, as they do in the United States. We do not have different times for voting, as they do in the United States, where you can vote before elections. We need seriously to look at how these micro-parties have been able to advance their interests—against the views, I believe, of the vast bulk of people who are voting in the Senate system. That is not to exclude minor parties. Obviously they have their part, but forming a political party a few months before the election, getting people to sign up in a shopping mall, and then having various people, operating under various front names, sitting down with each other and negotiating how they might get one of them elected is not really what Australian democracy is all about.
We can always work together to refine the system. We have a good system here in Australia. We have improved the number of people who are able to participate. As the Electoral Commission's work proceeds, more and more of the missing 1.5 million Australians will come on line and get re-enrolled. Great progress will be made by matching all of the various databases and having people say that, no, that is not their address, rather than having to respond to snail mail from the Electoral Commission.
We are making progress at enrolling as many Australians as possible—our democratic duty under a compulsory voting system. But we must address this issue of microparties gaming the political system, as we did with the issue of Pauline Hanson getting four per cent of the vote, not spending money on her electoral costs and getting $2.60 per voter. It is a bit like the film TheProducers. The accountant and the playwright sold 10,000 per cent of the play, but the play had to close on the first night. We have to recognise all of these kinds of permutations that take place in our great electoral system and, as democrats, together address them.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (18:23): In the spirit of bipartisanship, I commend the member for Melbourne Ports on his comments about the electoral process. Well done.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“the House declines to give the bill a second reading because it would be ill advised to continue with the bill without considering:
(1) the impact of Schedule 1 of this bill in relation to the protection of matters of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(2) government plans for the delegation of approval powers to states through bilateral agreements.”
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (18:23): I rise to speak on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I say very strongly that this is bad legislation, tabled by a government that is not prepared to take proper steps to protect Australia's environment. The federal government plays an important role in overseeing protection of our environment. This legislation allows the federal government to abrogate its responsibility for the environment to the Australian people, and give the states a much freer hand without properly scrutinising them.
As a whole, this bill will be giving with one hand and taking with the other. In effect, it removes the legislative requirement for ministers to consider threatened and endangered species when approving projects, while increasing penalties for the illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs. On the one hand, they are saying 'We're not going to look at what you're doing' and, on the other hand, they are saying 'We're going to increase the penalties.' It is very difficult to increase penalties in these circumstances, particularly when you look at the history relating to the enforcement of these penalties for the illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs.
Over a number of years, I have been actively involved in looking at issues surrounding the environment. I was a councillor in local government and for a little while was a state member of parliament. I know the problems that are associated with development approvals. Sometimes a project is only properly considered when the federal government looks at the impact a particular action will have on a threatened species. In this case, the minister is moving away from that. Under these changes, a minister can approve a development that causes direct harm to turtles and dugongs, without even considering the impact, while at the same time increasing penalties for others who have harmed these animals. They can, on the one hand, increase the penalties but, on the other hand, take away a minister's responsibility. That is not good enough. As a parliament, we owe it to the Australian people to take these issues a lot more seriously than this legislation does.
It is not just about the federal minister. When plans delegated to approve powers to Queensland and New South Wales come to fruition, Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales and Premier Newman in Queensland will have the power to be relieved of the duty to consider conservation advice before approving projects. Under the legislation, the O'Farrell government—I know a little about its activities and have seen some of the projects that have been approved—will have greater power. This causes me a lot of concern.
There have been a number of projects within my electorate that I have serious concerns about. If the proposed legislation this parliament will be considering comes into effect, in some cases, state governments will be considering or granting approval for their own projects. That should cause concern for every member of this House, because there are times when self-interest can outweigh the benefit to the community as a whole. We on this side of the House are opposed to the weakening of these powers, because we do not believe that you can trust state governments. I certainly would not trust Barry O'Farrell, who has allowed shooters in national parks, or Campbell Newman, who I would not trust to look after the Great Barrier Reef.
They are really important assets of our country, and we are prepared to water down the effect of the sanctions, the protections, that are in place. The current penalties for the hunting of dugong, if they reflect anything, are not being used—and here we are increasing them.
We on this side of the House strongly support greater protection for turtles and dugongs, but we do not support the weakening of power. This bill will drastically weaken the EPBC Act in its protection of threatened and endangered species. That comes back to what I was saying when I started my contribution to this debate. There are developments in my electorate that have only been reconsidered or changed because the federal government forced the developers and the approval authorities to look at the threatened and endangered species. This bill removes any capacity to legally challenge an approval on the basis that the advice was not properly considered. It does this retrospectively. Not only are we taking away that power, not only are we saying that it does not matter if everything is not properly considered and that it does not matter if the minister has not taken into account all the issues, but we are doing this retrospectively. I am never comfortable with retrospective legislation and I am particularly uncomfortable with this legislation.
Often in this place we forget how important the environment is. If we do not look after the environment practically every aspect of our lives will be impacted upon. We need to look after the environment; the farmers need to look after the environment because it is about preserving their livelihood; and the tourism industry needs to look after the environment because it is about preserving their livelihood. We are talking about the dugongs and the turtles which are both tourist attractions. If we do not have the proper mechanisms in place and if we do not have the proper legislation in place to ensure the protection of these vital species, our environment and the endangered species, then we are putting a lot at risk.
I cannot support any bill that is going to weaken environmental laws. I think that further down the track those on the other side of the House will look back and say, 'I had the opportunity when I was in federal parliament to ensure that our environment was properly protected. I had the opportunity to see that our endangered species were protected and that the act that covers them was properly enforced. Instead of that, I took the easy way out. I took the way out that allowed me to say: 'Let's abrogate our responsibility. Let's hand it over to the states. By the way, when we hand it over to the states, if they do not take everything into consideration as well, then I suppose that is okay. We'll let them get away with it.' It is all about weakening environmental protection. That is something that we cannot support on this side of the House.
Depending on the type and the location of a project—for example, a new housing estate, or a new mine, or a port expansion—when we look at advice in relation to threatened species, then it could have a really big impact. When the government is preparing to hand over environmental assessments and approvals to state governments like Queensland and New South Wales, it is an even greater worry. The changes in this bill not only mean that the federal minister does not consider expert advice; they also allow state ministers to not consider expert advice. I know there have been some problems in the past, but this is using a sledgehammer to secure a tack.
There has been a lot of commentary on this and it has not been favourable. When the government first touted that it was going to introduce this bill, it was opposed by a number of environmental groups, by people in the community and by people who are experts in the area. It was also highlighted that the proposed changes to the law would be retrospective so that any approval by the minister up until now would be insulated against any type of legal action. The amendments will apply retrospectively to ensure that past decisions are not at risk of being invalid. Cases have been heard time and time again which make the minister and the government of the day a little more accountable. What is the point of even having an environment minister if he is not prepared to listen to advice about the environment? It is very important that advice is sought, that advice is received and that the minister consider that advice. Failure to do so shows that the minister is not serious about his portfolio. It also shows that, rather than look at ways to properly consider issues, the minister is more worried about actions in the Supreme Court or actions that come out of the fact that he has not looked at the issue properly. I think alarm bells are ringing throughout the country, following the introduction of this legislation. I implore the government to think about this a second time.
The bill before us is not good legislation. It is not going to deliver accountable, transparent government to the Australian people. Rather, it is going to deliver a system that will allow the cover-up of bad decisions, it will allow ministers to be very lazy in their approach to the assessment process, it will not ensure the future of endangered species and it will not ensure that the Commonwealth really fulfils its role. There is a lot of talk about green tape and cutting green tape. If cutting green tape means that we do not have proper environmental protection in place, then I think it is bad legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I urge you and other members of this House to take a second look at this legislation and to look at ways that proper environmental protection can be put in place. Environmental protection is essential if we are to enjoy a sustainable future. This legislation opens the door for poor decision making and allows both the federal and the state ministers to abrogate their responsibilities completely. It will remove transparency from the process and it will remove accountability. It is legislation that is allowing governments to be lackadaisical. It is poor legislation and it should be rejected by this House.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (18:38): I am glad for the opportunity to speak about the flaws contained in this bill, the Environment Amendment Legislation Bill 2013, which will undoubtedly weaken Australia's environmental protection framework. That framework has been painstakingly assembled, and it will be no surprise to anyone that it has largely been assembled by Labor governments. It is unfortunate that coalition governments at state and federal level, when it comes to the custodianship of Australia's environment, are inclined to err on the side of large commercial interests in relation to finding the right line between development and environmental protection, when it must be said that those commercial interests are quite capable of putting their own best foot forward and it is government's role, without question, to err on the side of environmental protection.
The environment is a part of the global commons that belong to all of us. Government is our representative and our voice in support of its appropriate care and conservation. As other members have noted, this bill essentially permits the minister to have less regard to the advice of conservation experts and it accords that advice much less weight or significance by removing the capacity for a decision made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to be reviewable where a minister has not received or had regard to expert advice. On the face of it, such a change is hard to fathom. It is absolutely right that environmental assessments and decisions relating to development that has environmental impacts ought to be informed and guided by appropriate expert advice. Indeed, if there are shortcomings in the current system, in my view they lie more in the area around issues of independence in terms of professional environmental advice and assessments, especially with regard to those that are commissioned and paid for by development proponents.
The use of the Tarkine case as justification for this bill's weakening of basic environmental and administrative requirements is bewildering. In the Tarkine case the relevant advice was not provided to the minister. It was a departmental process failure, an administrative failure and not in any way a shortcoming of the current framework. Ultimately, the decision in Tarkine cured the administrative failure by requiring that the advice be provided so that it could be considered. This occurred and the decision was then properly taken. I think the average person in the street—the person who in English case law was once referred to as the 'man on the Clapham omnibus'—would see the folly of addressing the administrative shortcomings of a particular decision by altering national law to ensure that any future decision that suffers a similar administrative flaw can effectively be deemed valid.
The requirement that a decision maker have regard to certain facts, criteria, considerations or advice—as is the case under section 139 of the EPBC Act—is a very common feature of a properly structured decision-making process. If the failure to have appropriate regard to such advice has no consequences, what is the point of requiring the provision of such advice in the first place? If decisions that involve significant expertise can be made without regard to expert advice, what confidence can the public have in the quality of government decision making? If the regulatory framework is watered down to such a degree, how can anyone make a reasonable argument that the proper and necessary consideration is being given to environmental conservation and protection?
This bill extends to state governments the weakened scrutiny of potentially unacceptable impacts on the environmental and biodiversity values of an affected area. It will mean that, where a decision is delegated to a state government, the failure to take account of expert advice in making that decision will not affect its validity. Again, one has to ask: what is the point of requiring the provision of expert advice and requiring that it be paid due regard if in fact neither of those things are necessary ingredients of a valid decision?
In my home state of Western Australia we have seen the kind of decision that is made when develop-at-all-cost state governments preside over an insufficiently rigorous environmental assessment and protection process. In fact, we saw a state government decision taken in relation to the James Price Point gas hub proposal on advice from the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority that was formulated despite four of the five EPA board members having recused themselves on the grounds of conflict of interest. The WA Supreme Court ultimately found the EPA and state government processes to have been fatally flawed. Prior to that decision, the EPA chairman, Paul Vogel, tried to allay concerns about the EPA process by reference to the provision of expert advice. He said, 'I actually have access to expert technical and scientific advice across the office of the EPA, the Department of Environment and Conservation and any other agency that I deem necessary to inform my decision.' The message here from the WA EPA chairman is that important decisions affecting the environment must be evidence based. Yet, with the changes that this bill contains, ministers—including state government ministers—will be able to make decisions without having received expert advice.
The coalition government is relying on a simplistic and reductive abhorrence of so-called red tape or green tape in tearing away the kinds of regulatory constraints that have been fashioned over some time and that exist for very good reason. These are the kinds of regulatory restraints that rightly meet the community's expectation that government policy, departments and ministers will rely on evidence, science and expert advice to protect and conserve the environment that we all share and that we all enjoy on trust for future generations. This bill uses a spurious excuse to make changes that abrogate government's responsibility to perform that protective role in relation to Australia's fragile and precious environment.
I would like to associate myself with the eloquent remarks by the member for Wills on this bill to the effect that we should be strengthening rather than weakening the protections in the EPBC Act. The member for Wills referred to many endangered species, including a number of parrots. I am especially pleased that he mentioned one of the most endangered species of all, the beautiful western ground parrot, which is one of the rarest parrots in the world and almost extinct. Unique to Western Australia, there are less than 110 of these parrots left and their numbers are declining fast. It is unspeakably sad to contemplate the extinction of a species, and I pay tribute to the Friends of the Western Ground Parrot for their efforts to raise awareness and funding for the preservation of the western ground parrot. I am also grateful for the contribution to the community debate on the need to strengthen the EPBC Act by the Places You Love campaign, including such organisations as the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society, WWF, state and territory conservation councils, national parks associations and EDOs, as well as many other groups. These organisations represent over 1.5 million Australians, people who love our wildlife, the natural environment and our national parks.
As parliamentarians we have a duty to look after our unique shared natural heritage. When the time comes to leave this place, this should be one of our most important legacies.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (18:46): I want to thank all of the members for their contribution to the debate on the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill provides legal certainty for decisions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It provides additional protection for turtles and dugongs under the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The need for these improvements to national environmental law has arisen as a result of recent case law, and, separately, concerns about the illegal poaching and trading of turtles and dugongs.
Let me deal first with the question of the conservation advice amendment. This is actually fixing up a mess caused by the previous government. We are helping them out. There is an existing set of appeals. There could potentially be more based on technicalities. These could cause endless delay without there being any substantive basis for the claims of improper decision making. We know that the other side is in agreement with this. What they are doing at the moment is in breach of what we understood to be the direction they would head. So in good faith we have entered into discussions so as not to delay this—to ensure that there is a sunset clause on this legislation with regard to decisions made by 31 December of this year. In other words, we are covering and protecting all of the decisions made by the previous government and are setting 31 December for the sake of clarity and precision. We are doing that in good faith, and I would hope that members opposite, and in particular the shadow minister opposite, would not act in contravention of the good faith shown, the discussions had and the actions taken.
We are repairing that which was broken under a previous administration and we are not even requiring that this protection apply to us. We are making the decisions properly on our watch. We are making the decisions carefully on our watch. And it is passing strange that the people who made the mess are now opposing others cleaning up their mess. I think that the relevant previous minister and the relevant current opposition shadow minister know that to be the case; they know that it would be utterly inappropriate for them to stand in the way of us cleaning up the mess. Nevertheless, in good faith, we will make sure that this has a sunset clause. I will move an amendment to that effect during the consideration in detail stage. That is a significant move. It places a higher burden on the government and in particular on me as the responsible minister. I am happy to accept that and happy also to make sure that there is no uncertainty in relation to past decisions made by the previous government. It would be a singular act of inappropriate behaviour were they not to honour the steps which were agreed and which were progressed in good faith. I will wait for the opposition to honour that which they had indicated they were going to pursue.
As I just indicated—as the shadow minister enters the chamber—we will, in good faith, put in place a sunset clause of 31 December—no tricks, no games. Therefore, all decisions made by the previous government will be closed and covered and protected against a technical deficiency. On our watch, in our time, on our responsibility we are not seeking that protection for all decisions after 31 December. I think that it is very important to understand that we are setting for ourselves a higher standard than that which we are now putting in place for decisions of the previous administration.
The second part of this bill is in relation to the turtles and dugongs amendments. These amendments implement our election commitment to triple the financial penalties for poaching and illegal transportation of turtle and dugong meat as announced in the dugong and turtle protection plan. The bill amends the EPBC Act and the Marine Park Act to increase criminal and civil financial penalties for killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving a turtle or a dugong in the Commonwealth marine area and for taking or injuring turtles and dugongs within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The increased penalties will deter people from committing offences or breaching civil penalty provisions under the act.
I would also note that we will not be accepting the second reading amendment proposed by the opposition for the very reasons I have set out. In good faith, we have offered through the consideration in detail process substantive amendments which will achieve their concerns whilst protecting their decisions. I believe that that is more than the government needed to have done but it is done so there is no delay in this process.
The Greens have indicated that they will be making amendments. We will not be accepting those amendments because that would effectively forestall and destroy the one-stop-shop process. We are in the process of lifting standards around the country. States are coming to us, not going in the other direction. So we are lifting standards. This would hurt standards in the states. It would create unnecessary delay. It would create duplication. And it would fail to help the environment in any way. So I respectfully say to the Leader of the Greens in this House that we will not be accepting those amendments.
Having said that, I commend the bill to the House. I commend it in its original form and I will let the House continue its work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until 8 pm.
Debate adjourned.
Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (18:53): I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013, to outline to the House the opposition's view on this important piece of legislation. When it was suggested by the Labor Party that we might be able to identify a targeted saving from restricting the research and development tax credit by excluding companies with a turnover of more than $20 billion, those opposite cried foul. This, they said, was another outrageous attack on business. They swore black and blue, with the member for Indi leading the charge as she held the industry portfolio, that this was bad policy and would not be supported by the coalition. That was back in February. Now here we are in December with the coalition putting forward this very same savings measure. But there is a key difference here, between now and February—
Mr McCormack: The budget position!
Dr LEIGH: I will take that interjection from the member at the table who is referring to the budget position. What the member misses, of course, is that, thanks to Peter Costello, the old spiders-in-the-closet trick has been foreclosed. The pre-election fiscal outlook was designed to ensure that no party could do as the coalition has attempted to do and suggest that the state of the books upon taking office was different from what was reflected in the pre-election fiscal outlook. So let us not have the faux outrage. If there are any spiders in the closet, they are there because the Treasurer has taken up a redback breeding program. Those redbacks are things like the $17 billion of tax breaks to mining billionaires and large polluters, and the $9 billion to the Reserve Bank, which is being given to the Reserve Bank, let's face it, in the hope of garnering greater dividends subsequently. But the pre-election fiscal outlook has foreclosed that, and when MYEFO is brought down—which may or may not be before Christmas; we are yet to find out—it will be very clearly a statement of how the budget has changed under the coalition. MYEFO is not a statement about the economy that the coalition inherited; it is a statement about how the coalition has changed the fiscal outlook since then.
The bill before the House tonight contains within it a saving, restricting the R&D tax credit by excluding companies with a turnover of over $20 billion. The precise details of those companies is of course not a matter of public record due to taxpayer confidentiality, but if one looks at IBISWorld data it seems to suggest that there are around a dozen companies, principally in the sectors of finance and mining.
But when Labor introduced this savings measure, it was designed to fund the Australian Jobs Act, which had come out of the job summit and which ensured that manufacturing had a sustainable future in this country, because if there is one party which has consistently stood up for the interests of manufacturing it is the Labor Party. I give credit to so many of my colleagues on this: Senator Kim Carr; the member for Wakefield, Nick Champion; and the member for Throsby, Stephen Jones—assiduous campaigners, along with the then minister for industry, Greg Combet, in advocating for a strong manufacturing sector in this country.
What the coalition has done is to take the savings measure but jettison the Australian Jobs Act, and that is why this side of the House will not be supporting the change to the research and development tax credit because that change does not go to fund targeted assistance to the manufacturing sector—things like manufacturing precincts, which I am sure many of my colleagues in this debate will speak about. It goes instead to provide a tax cut to mining billionaires.
This is not consistent with basic Australian values—values of egalitarianism, mateship and a fair go—and the demand, I think, that if we in the House are to take scarce taxpayer dollars and use them on tax expenditures then they should be targeted towards those who need them most. With manufacturing enterprises in some cases struggling against the headwinds of the high Australian dollar, we believe that that is an appropriate use of public finances. We do not, however, believe that it is an appropriate use of taxpayers dollars to scrap the mining tax, a tax projected by the Treasurer's own forward estimates—and it will be interesting to see when his mid-year outlook is brought out whether this has changed—to raise somewhere in the order of $4 billion. That is $4 billion dollars that will be given back to mining magnates. This is the sort of program that is being funded by taking away the research and development tax credit for the largest companies in Australia.
Labor would have supported this savings measure—it is a difficult savings measure and one that is not an easy decision to come to in government—had it been that the resources would have gone towards the cause of supporting Australian jobs. But when the coalition are instead using that money to back in a paid parental leave scheme that gives $15,000 to a minimum-wage worker and $75,000 to a billionaire who has a baby we do not think that is fair. We do not think that that is a fair use of taxpayers' dollars. We do not believe that a baby born to a billionaire is somehow worth five times as much as a baby born to somebody who is on the minimum wage.
We believe that the Australian social safety net—targeted assistance that has provided the most to those who need the most—is an appropriate way of ensuring taxpayers' dollars are spent. Ours is the most tightly targeted social safety net in the OECD, as Peter Whiteford has outlined. The measures being brought forward by the coalition are going to change that significantly.
It is a rare coalition government that does not just cut taxes for the rich and cut benefits for the poor, but indeed raises benefits for the most affluent Australians. We do not believe that is a good use of taxpayer funds and that is why we will not be supporting this savings measure.
Had Sophie Mirabella been in this chamber it would have been my pleasure to go through piece by piece her faux outrage back in February when the then Gillard government announced this savings measure. This is a complete backflip by the coalition, a backflip that walks back from their strong statements before the election that they did not want to find a targeted savings measure on the research and development tax credit. Now we see that they want to bank the saving but spend it on a tax cut for mining billionaires. Labor does not believe that is fair and that is why we will not be supporting the measure.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (19:02): I am very pleased to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013, and to follow the member for Fraser. I was expecting a thoughtful policy discussion from the member for Fraser but unfortunately we got some warmed over class warfare rhetoric, which is particularly disappointing.
The whole question of tax incentives for research and development spending, which is dealt with in this bill, is a very important area. The question of innovation policy is of critical importance to our national competitiveness and to our prosperity. Tax measures are a vital policy lever in stimulating the kind of behaviour from the private sector that is so important.
The stated purpose of this bill is to better target the expenditures that are made in underpinning research and development spending by the private sector. In particular, this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act so as to direct the research and development tax incentives to companies with aggregated assessable income of less than $20 billion. It does this by denying the incentive to companies that have an assessable income of $20 billion or more in an income year.
In the brief time available to me this evening I want to make three points. Firstly, that innovation is key to our national economic performance. Secondly, that this bill seeks to align innovation tax concessions where they will have the most impact. Thirdly, that there is more to do on innovation.
Let me turn to the first proposition: that innovation is key to our national economic performance. If we are to continue to improve our living standards, create new business opportunities and remain globally competitive then we must have an innovative economy. This is essential to creating jobs, improving productivity and improving competitiveness.
If we look around the world there are many examples of successful innovation. We can look at the powerhouse IT companies of silicon valley. We can look at the many impressive developments in Israel, described in a recent book as the start-up nation. We can look at the 10,000 PhD qualified engineers graduating in China each year. We can look at the great pharmaceutical companies of Europe and the United States. We can look at the consumer electronics companies of Japan and South Korea. There are many shining examples of successful innovation around the world, and it is no surprise that innovation policy will always be a focus for government. Nor is this a new thing. It is some 50 years since then UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson talked about the white heat of technological innovation. So this has always been an area of acute interest to governments and policy makers. We all know that there are policy settings that can encourage innovation and there are policy settings that, if we get them wrong, can hold back the amount of activity occurring in Australia at each stage of the innovation process.
As we consider the particular tax measure before us this evening it is wise to recognise that the evidence shows that the returns on innovation are greater than ever. Look, for example, at the take-up rate of new products, which are much faster than they used to be. According to a 2012 article in the MIT Technology Review, it took 30 years before electricity reached a 10 per cent penetration of the consumer market in the United States. The mobile phone took 12 years and the tablet computer took less than three years. At the same time we have a world that is more affluent than it used to be, so the global rewards for developing a new vaccine, a new genetically modified crop or a new IT application are greater than they ever have been. The returns on innovation are high. Conversely, the penalty for not being an innovative nation is more serious than ever.
The other important factor in this policy mix is the very close linkage between innovation and productivity. It is innovation that drives productivity improvement, and it is productivity improvement that drives prosperity. The US economist Robert Solow won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his finding that technology was more important than either capital or labour in driving productivity growth. He observed that in the US per capita income quadrupled from 1869 to 1953 and he studied the factors that drove this quadrupling of income. Only 15 per cent of that growth was due to more inputs—that is to say, more labour or more capital being put into the national economic machine. The rest of that very impressive growth in prosperity came from technological innovation.
The prize for having an economy that delivers innovation is very high and, therefore, the imperative for getting policy in this area right is compelling. We can all agree that makes sense. What is less easy to agree on is what exactly ought those policies be, and where should the tax measures that this bill is dealing with fit in to that overall matrix. It is tempting to think of Australian researchers doing world-leading pure research and to think of Australian institutions and companies taking that research and turning it into commercially useful technology that is protected by patent, by copyright or other intellectual property rights and to think of Australian companies taking that technology and selling around the world products and services that embody that technology. And we have some examples of that end-to-end value chain, and I will talk in a moment about one of those companies, Cochlear, which is a world leader in hearing aids.
But the reality is much more complex than this simple vision. It is neither feasible nor desirable to suggest that basic research that is done in Australia may only be commercialised by Australian companies. Innovation, as we know, occurs in many different settings—in universities, in research institutes, in for-profit companies and in other places as well. Indeed, Australia's Chief Scientist recently highlighted a very interesting phenomenon: on the one hand, Australia compares well to other countries based on the number of researchers per head of population in higher education. But we have a noticeably lower number employed in business enterprises.
Where does tax expenditure on innovation fit into the overall picture of government policy in this area. If you take the numbers that were announced in the lead-up to the 2012-13 years, the Commonwealth government at that time announced that total spending was going to be $8.9 billion. Of this, $1.8 billion was the industry research and development tax measures, so the measures that we are debating this evening form an important part of the overall mix of innovation policy. Some of the other major line items included $950 million for the National Health and Medical Research Council, $737 million for the CSIRO and a range of other programs. But the key point is that the research and development tax incentives make up a very big part of the overall policy picture when it comes to the policy settings in Australia to encourage innovation and the kinds of activities that we hope will lead to these economy-wide benefits that I have spoken about.
I mentioned earlier the hearing implant company Cochlear, which is a shining example of this process at work. Most recently, Cochlear has had sales of around $800 million, with some 85 per cent of that from outside Australia. They sell cochlear implants that use unique Australian developed technology. Very importantly, thanks to the company's success, it now reinvests substantial private money—over $100 million a year—into ongoing research and development. This is an example of the virtuous circle that can arise if we manage to catalyse the kind of research that leads to commercialisation that leads to commercial success and now is producing substantial money that is being ploughed back into R&D in particular companies.
As many have observed, we have some success stories in Australia—Cochlear, ResMed, CSL and others. But we would like to see many more. When we look around the world, we see examples of countries that have achieved more success in generating innovation and in generating a high-tech sector than we have achieved in Australia.
Let me turn next to the specific measures in the bill before us this evening. The measures in the bill align innovation tax concessions where they will have the most impact by limiting the R&D tax incentive to companies with an aggregated income of less than $20 billion. The rationale for this is to target the access to that incentive to small- and medium-sized entities, which, it is expected, are likely to be more responsive to government incentives in their research and development spending than larger organisations might be.
In the time remaining, I want to make a third and final point, and that is that there is more to do when it comes to innovation policy. This bill is one particular measure designed to achieve greater outcomes for the taxpayer's dollar. But there is more that can be done. Commentators in the area of innovation policy point to a range of policy levers. One of the challenges in this area is that those policy levers extend across many different portfolios. For example, immigration is an important policy lever and the success of the US high-tech sector—the success of Silicon Valley and the many other areas around the US where innovation has prospered—is linked in significant measure to talented people coming into that country from many other countries to complete their education and often to do higher education and then to stay and to contribute to the high-tech sectors in that country. Immigration policy in Australia also acknowledges the desirability of bringing talented people into the country. So immigration is an important lever when it comes to innovation policy.
One of the other questions that arises and has engendered a lot of debate in Australia is the question of how best to tap into the very large pool of superannuation capital, now exceeding $1.6 trillion, to increase investment in start-up technology companies. Let me hasten to add that I certainly do not advocate any simplistic notion of some kind of quota. But the generalised question of whether there is scope to draw on that pool of capital, and to offer attractive investment opportunities to those investment managers to give them opportunities to access innovative companies, is a very good question and a question we do need, in my view, to think about seriously.
Yet another factor that is consistently raised by start-up companies and companies in the early stages of their development in Australia is the question of stock options and the fact that it is more difficult under the tax system in Australia to offer stock options as an incentive to employees than it is in the US. In the US, as is well known, it is very common to offer people stock options as an incentive to join a start-up company. The rationale for doing so is that it is difficult to offer significant remuneration in cash but people who join a company at an early stage and contribute to its development have the capacity, if things go well, to share in the wealth that is created if that company meets the highest expectations. Of course there is significant risk there, but the structure of this kind of remuneration arrangement is designed to give people the chance to share in the upside, should it come off, and it has clearly been the case that that has been a significant factor in the growth and success of the high-tech sector in the United States. It is certainly not for me to comment on tax policy. I simply make the point that this is an important policy lever that bears on innovation policy, just as the research and development tax incentives that are the subject of today's bill bear on innovation policy.
I want to make one final point. On this side of the House we recognise the absolutely critical and central role of the private sector in innovation and the commercialisation of innovation. Unlike the previous government we do not think you can regulate your way to greatness in innovation policy or in any other area.
Let me conclude by noting that the measures in this bill are important as part of the overall range of measures designed to stimulate innovation and to stimulate research and development. To that extent they deserve support, but they form part of a broader, complex and important policy picture.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (19:17): I move the second reading amendment circulated in the name of the member for Fraser:
That all the 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 opinion that the:
(1) Government has broken an election promise and back flipped on its previous pledge to oppose this measure; and
(2) Government's decision to not continue with the Australian Jobs Act, which was intended to be funded by revenue from this tax measure, is deplorable and this demonstrates the Government's lack of commitment to supporting Australian employment."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Kate Ellis: I second the amendment.
Mr CONROY: I enjoyed the member for Bradfield's very well considered contribution. Unfortunately, he missed one vital point—which is that you can talk about better targeting of innovation funding but then you actually have to get away from the cut to what you are going to use the money for. He was very silent on that, because that is the giant hole in the argument from the coalition. This is an important savings measure that will better target innovation support, but only if the money is returned to supporting industry and innovation policies, which is exactly what the last Labor government intended when they announced this measure.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Research And Development) Bill 2013 in effect demonstrates the hypocrisy of the coalition. Denying the R&D tax incentive to the largest firms in this country represents another broken promise of the new coalition government.
These changes were introduced to better target support for innovation as part of a way for paying for the $1 billion for Australian jobs announced by the previous, Labor government around February this year. Those opposite are opposed to the Aussie jobs plan, yet they pay lip service to support for existing and new industries. They criticise this savings measure, yet they are taking it and not committing to the new innovation agenda.
As I said, this bill represents a broken promise. The coalition went to the last election stating that they would reverse the government's decision to make this change to the R&D tax incentive. A couple of quotes illustrate this case. The then coalition industry spokesperson, Sophie Mirabella, said the following:
Julia Gillard said this was about jobs and innovation but this policy announcement is destroying confidence in a tax incentive that makes industry responsible for its own innovation.
She went on to say:
We know that large multinational companies won't be hit by the R&D tax cut. It is Aussie companies that will be struck by the cut, perversely the opposite of Labor's claim to be creating Aussie jobs.
The now Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, said:
More recently the government—
the previous government—
announced with no warning it was funding its Orwellian Plan for Australian Jobs package by cutting the R&D tax break for large companies, reaping $1 billion over four years. The government has become immensely unpredictable on tax policy, despite the charade of consultation.
So on the one hand we had empty, hollow criticism from those opposite before the election, but now they are happy to take the saving. What is worse is that they will not even put the money back into supporting innovation in this country. Yet again, it is the coalition saying one thing before the election and doing the exact opposite after the election. The Australian people are quickly realising that this is not the government they voted for.
As I said, this savings measure is about better targeting innovation assistance. International experience and studies have shown that companies that have over $20 billion in domestic turnover, large companies, are able to self-fund their innovation activities. But that is not a reason to pull the funding back from them and just return it to consolidated revenue; you need to use the funding to better target innovation policy.
The member for Bradfield earlier identified innovation policies and the growth of clusters and other things in other countries—whether in Israel, Silicon Valley or Europe. That is what this funding was going to do, through the plan for Australian jobs. This Aussie jobs plan was the result of extensive consultation, primarily through the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing. This was a tripartite body, not stacked with stooges of any political party. It was very representative. It had good industry leaders, such as Ian Thomas from Boeing, Phil Butler from Textor Technologies, Rebecca Dee-Bradbury from Kraft Foods, Mike Devereaux from General Motors Holden and Innes Willox from AiG. It had some very notable, world respected innovation leaders in people like Professor Goran Roos and Professor Roy Green, and it had some very good union leadership in Dave Oliver, Paul Bastian and Paul Howes.
This tripartite task force came up with an agenda to revitalise manufacturing in Australia, an agenda to boost innovation and an agenda to look at what is happening around the world and take it and implement it in Australia to help business innovate and grow. We had to fund it, and we funded it through this responsible savings measure. The $1 billion plan that this savings measure was to fund covered three important points. First off was backing Australian firms to win more work here and abroad through improving Australian industry participation plans, making sure that large projects in this country—projects worth over $500 million—gave Aussie companies a fair shot, gave them a chance at the start of the process to tender for the massive amount of work. It gave them a fair go by ensuring that they did not issue the tender specifications in overseas standards, which would have excluded Australian companies from the get-go. This also included strengthening antidumping reforms to ensure that goods were not dumped in this country at below market prices. So, that was the first aspect of the plan that this savings measure was to fund.
The second important measure was supporting Australian industry to increase exports and win business abroad, and this was through the $500 million precincts initiative. Precincts, or clusters, have been proven overseas to be a great way of growing industry. There are strong economies of agglomeration and clustering, and we were trying to implement this and look at overseas examples as a way forward. The precincts initiative would have funded up to 12 precincts around the country. The first two announced were manufacturing in south-east Melbourne and food headquartered in the western suburbs of Melbourne. They were two great examples of bringing together industry both large and small, academia, the great research organisations that are in this country and workers to ensure that learning by doing, economies of agglomeration, and cumulative and circular causation were all happening so that these industries would get off the ground.
It was a great initiative. We had well over 50 applications for precinct funding. Unfortunately this has all fallen into a void now, with a new government. I am certainly calling on the new minister, the member for Groom, to honour this policy, because it is not just Labor's policy. It is a policy industry called for. It is a policy industry championed—whether it was big industry, through Boeing; SMEs, through Textor Technologies; or academia, through Professor Goren Roos. They are all saying that this is the direction Australia needs to head in. I am glad the member for Bradfield identified overseas examples of exactly where this clustering is occurring. So, that was the second arm of the plan for Australian jobs that this tax measure was going to fund.
The third arm was helping Australian small and medium businesses to grow, principally through venture capital. The previous speaker talked about needing to boost start-ups, and one way of boosting start-ups is through improving venture capital arrangements in this country. So, the Aussie jobs plan had a series of initiatives to support venture capital in this country—most importantly, another round of the innovation investment fund, worth $350 million, which would leverage another $350 million in private sector funding for a $700 million venture capital fund that would help grow Aussie SMEs and make them the large Australian companies of the future. This is so important if we are to grow Australian employment.
Unfortunately, this is all in jeopardy now with the new government. They are happy to take the billion dollars in funding but not fund the very sensible, rational initiatives that accompanied it. Unfortunately this is symptomatic of a government that does not respect industry policy, does not respect supporting innovation and really pays only lip service to supporting the growth of new industries and support for established industries. We have seen this in the attempted abolition of $15 billion of innovation and industry policies under the Clean Energy Future package. This included the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the $3 billion ARENA institution and the $1.2 billion clean technology programs. All these programs were aimed at funding and supporting innovation, complementing the R&D tax incentive. In fact, the CEFC, as we heard from the chairwoman, Jillian Broadbent, recently, would actually make money for the government while supporting late-stage commercialisation of new technologies—something so vital if we are to compete in the 21st century. The countries that develop and commercialise the new technologies to decarbonise the world are the countries that will prosper in the 21st century. This is why Labor put together $15 billion worth of industry policy, supported by the R&D tax incentive, and all this is under attack by the new coalition government, who, if the answer by the Minister for Agriculture in question time is representative, wants us to return to being a country built on the sheep's back. That is important; agriculture has a vital role. But, as an aside, I had the brief picture that we were in the 1950s here, when the only two things we exported were wheat and wool, and maybe in a good year iron ore and coal. That is not what Australia is, and it is not what Australia should be in the future. That is why Labor's reforms in the last government were very important.
Another aspect of the R&D incentive debate is the importance of industries that really drive innovation, that really lift more than their share in R&D and drive how that flows on to the rest of the economy. A great example of that is the automotive industry in this country. This is an industry that makes up around five per cent of manufacturing employment, about one per cent of total national employment, yet it does 25 per cent of R&D in the manufacturing industry and around 10 per cent of R&D in the national economy as a whole. And this is another industry under attack by the coalition government. This is a coalition government that has already announced that $500 million is being ripped out of funding before 2015. Depending on what day of the week it was, they were going to take away the entire $1.5 billion after 2015—sometimes it was $2 billion, sometimes it was $1 billion; it really depended on what side of the bed the Prime Minister, the then member for Indi or the member for Groom got up on. This is another example of them ripping away support for the industry and innovation policy agenda. It is not just about corporations; it is about workers. The automotive industry employs 50,000 people directly and another 200,000 people indirectly. They do an awfully large amount of training in the manufacturing sector, and I guarantee you that, if you go to other parts of the manufacturing sector, you will meet a fitter and turner, a welder or a production engineer who probably started at GM, Ford or Toyota.
These are just three examples of the government's lack of respect for innovation. It should not come as a surprise, because one of the first acts the Howard government undertook when it first came into power in 1996 was to slash the R&D tax break from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. So I would submit that this government has form in ripping away support for innovation policy.
I return to the main purpose of this bill, which is to restrict the R&D tax incentive to companies with less than $20 billion in domestic turnover. This was a hard decision, and it is a hard act because it means reducing support for innovation for around 15 to 20 companies in this country. I would submit, and I think the data and the advice from Treasury and the Department of Industry is, that they will generally be able to self-fund that important work. But the most important thing is that money be returned to supporting innovation in the industry policy because we need to grow the industries of the future. That is vital.
Unfortunately, the failure of the coalition to honour this great opportunity demonstrates their hypocrisy. It is another broken promise. They caterwauled, they screamed and they complained when the Labor government took a sensible but hard funding savings decision before the election, and now they just try and slip it quietly through in the dead of night. They try and get it through, grab the $1 billion to fund God knows what—it could be their preposterous Paid Parental Leave scheme that rewards high-income earners at the expense of low- and medium-income working Australians in my electorate.
This is an important bill. It is an important savings measure. I would urge the new government to reconsider their decision and to support the $1 billion plan for Australian jobs because it is a plan built on what industry wants, what industry thinks will work, what international experience says will work. That is why it is so vital that we implement this particular initiative. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (19:32): Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I always appreciate appearing before you. I look forward to going back to your electorate in the lead-up to Christmas. Thank you for your kind permission to let me go there the other day.
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013. I commend the member for Charlton for his contribution, particularly for his comments about the automotive industry. Surely the result in the electorate of Indi was a comment on the mandate of the then opposition in terms of their policy for the automotive industry. I thought throwing out the shadow minister for industry, the only shadow minister to be thrown out, was a strong statement from the Australian people about the coalition's policy on the automotive industry. I am not going to focus on the automotive industry, but I would as a Queenslander—and with the member for Moncrieff in the chamber—point out the other great innovative industry which is based in Queensland, which is the medical industry. Businesses such as Cook Medical in my electorate are doing great things, as are so many other innovative businesses in the medical area.
Returning to the legislation before us, the Gillard Labor government's A plan for Australian jobs was a response to the report Smarter manufacturing for a smarter Australia. It recognised how things have changed. Chapter 6 of A plan for Australian jobs set out the Gillard government's proposals to help small and medium enterprises to grow and create new jobs. It included the proposal to target SMEs for additional research and development support. It looked at other jurisdictions to show that the R&D spending of small firms is actually more responsive to R&D tax incentives than that of larger firms. Consequently, it stated that very large companies, those with an annual Australian turnover of $20 billion or more—not many companies, obviously—would no longer be entitled to the non-refundable 40 per cent R&D tax offset. As the member for Moncrieff knows, we are the party of small business, so we did what we could to ensure we could support them in terms of having as much innovation as possible.
But, looking at those on the other side of the chamber, obviously this bill represents another broken promise from the coalition government. What they said before the election is different from what they are doing after the election. This measure was previously announced on 17 February by the Labor government, with revenue to fund a targeted jobs package, the Australian Jobs Act. The coalition, back then, before the election, made it very clear in opposition that they were against the changes to the research and development tax incentive. You can look through the Hansard. You can see their speeches. They were very clear. But now, suddenly, in government, the coalition has changed its tune. It is, yet again, an example of the Australian people not getting the government that they voted for and not getting the government that they read the brochures on. Suddenly, after the election, they find it is a different government. It is a doppelganger. It looks a little similar but acts a little bit differently. Australians are quickly realising that this is a pattern of behaviour: start as you intend to finish.
The former, Labor government implemented this plan to assist industries to create more jobs because we cannot go down the low wages route. We cannot compete with Asia and the low wages route. We tried that in 2004 under the Howard government and we saw that the low wages route—such as the $2 jobs at Curtain Call—is not the way forward. We saw a higher skills approach of innovation and selling quality services and quality products around the world. The billion dollar plan was implemented to promote jobs and to promote productivity, which has been steadily on the increase over the last six years. In the quarter when we came to office, productivity was at zero. When you need to do things to improve Australian productivity, what do you do? You invest in high-tech jobs and the tools of the 21st century, like the National Broadband Network. The jobs plan provides assistance for Australian companies to achieve more local work and to increase exports and new business overseas, and supports the growth of SMEs.
During Labor's term in government there were significant achievements, with a focus on employment beyond the resources boom. That is why we have been one of the few lucky countries in the world, with 22 years of uninterrupted growth. It has involved some tough decisions, both by Labor governments and by coalition governments. I should point out that the Howard and Costello government did make a contribution in that time as well.
I am proud to say that as a government we doubled our investment in school education and upgraded facilities at every school. There is still more work to be done in that area. Investing in staff is going to be a big part of that future education story. It was Labor that delivered the skills and training required for the jobs of the future through our $3 billion jobs and skills package. An additional 150,000 students are now attending university, particularly—as I am sure the Nationals would know—people from rural and remote areas, people from the poorer parts of Australia and people from some of the other problem areas, such as Indigenous students, who were under-represented in the past.
Since my election to this place on 24 November 2007, I know that we have been a party that is focused on providing jobs for this nation. Australia benefited from Labor's focus on bringing government, businesses and unions together around the same table rather than on continuing the politics of division. That is what those opposite practise. We are about getting people to the table to talk, to come up with the best way forward and the best way to provide jobs for the future—not about having an 'us and them' mentality. That is the way to build Australia's future—by working together, collaboratively, not by going down those old class lines that some members opposite cling to.
Supporting Australian jobs was our top priority through the global financial crisis, with more than 950,000 jobs created between 2007 and 2013. Look at what happened around the world in that period: 28 million people were added to unemployment queues. That is a cost to society and a cost to families, and decreases the chances of coming out of the austerity budgets that we have seen implemented throughout the world. Those opposite have some fun during question time, but the reality is that our nation is still given a AAA credit rating by all three ratings agencies. That is an albatross that not many treasurers get to have hung around their neck, but it is one that most treasurers around the world would gladly embrace.
Nearly one million Australians work in manufacturing. Our economies have transformed through some tough policies of the Hawke and Keating governments. Lowering tariffs brought challenges, particularly for the Labor faithful. But those tough decisions of the Hawke and Keating governments also set us up for the future. There are pressures on manufacturing. The most significant that any sensible economist would see would be the high Australian dollar and increasing international competition, which puts pressure on Australian jobs—more so than any price on pollution, which might influence some power bills that some businesses get.
It creates innovation when businesses understand that the world will always be carbon constrained, that the markets of the future will always operate in a carbon constrained world. I can see that it will not be that long before there are barriers put up if products are not green. Under our price on pollution, Australian businesses got the inside running. The political agenda of those opposite does not recognise that. Obviously, they are not as worried about the future. They are not as worried about Gold Coast beaches becoming shark nets as the beaches move further and further inland. But most sensible people are worried.
The coalition were not supportive of the jobs package, but they have now decided to implement our plan. We have seen the benefits of this package. Our focus as the Labor Party is always on making sure people have the dignity of a job. Job Services Australia has found work for around 1.5 million Australians since it commenced in 2009. We are also proud of our work in Disability Employment Services, which has resulted in a 46 per cent increase in the number of disabled people being helped into a job. Some of the services in my electorate talk about how, when people with disabilities obtain a job, they can be some of the best employees because they are often particularly focused on the job that they have rather than on things that can be distractions for other employees.
Our job plan included an investment in skills and training, including through TAFEs. Sadly, Liberal state governments do not have a proud record when it comes to TAFEs. In my home state of Queensland, we see a commitment to close down 40 per cent of TAFE campuses. I have three TAFE campuses in my electorate and some of them are already in the crosshairs. They are going to be stripped of their assets, and TAFE campuses are going to be opened up for use by private, for-profit providers. The education minister announced a 40 per cent reduction in the number of Queensland TAFE campuses. TAFE has a number of unique responsibilities, providing libraries, student counselling services and other support services that private suppliers just do not provide. I have seen this.
The Labor government's commitment was to give every senior high school student in Australia access to a trades training centre. This would have given them access to industry standard equipment and vocational education, offering a quality pathway into a trade or vocation and helping to address national skills shortages in traditional trades and emerging industries. Obviously, there is much more work to be done.
In my electorate in Queensland, sadly, unemployment has been a growing issue, not just because of the 14,000 or so public servants sacked by the Newman government; unemployment continues to rise. I have a big swathe of manufacturing through my electorate, including things like Cook Medical and major companies that service the mining industry. Those major companies have been under threat as those industries move from construction to production.
Since the implementation of the research and development tax incentives, thousands more firms are investing in themselves than was the case before. With Labor's plan we saw increased investment in clean technologies. I am particularly concerned about the direct action policy of those opposite because, under Labor, most of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to responding to climate change has already been picked. Most industries have already done their bit to change behaviours. Most industries that can have put solar panels on their roofs, have changed their light bulbs and have changed their production techniques. They have made investments in clean technologies. But this homeless waif of a policy called direct action, which no-one will own, is not going to deliver the savings that we need to meet the targets.
On the weekend, the Minister for the Environment was able to misrepresent the data that came out about decreased emissions. He bundled together the sections of the Australian economy that do not have a carbon price and said that emissions in industries such as the farming sector had increased. When you open up new mines the methane emissions increase. He bundled all those kinds of things together and said, 'You can see Labor's policy has not worked,' whereas, in reality, if he had looked at the bits of industry that had had a price put on carbon, he would have found that their innovation was plain to see and that their emissions had gone down significantly.
The growth of clean energy investment drives increases in jobs, investment and trade—particularly in the jobs for the future: the jobs for my children and grandchildren. Clean energy industries deliver both economic and environmental benefits, and their growth is driven by the fact that they are more efficient, more profitable and more sustainable enterprises.
The bill before the House today is a clear example of this government's being unable to clearly outline to the Australian public its true intentions. Again, this is not the government that they said, before the election, they were going to be. Before the election those on the other side of the chamber said one thing; now they are doing another. First they told us they would honour the Better Schools Plan agreements, but they did—not a back-flip; that would put them back in the same spot—a volte-face.
The Treasurer stated that the government at the time had become 'unpredictable on tax policy', but the government is now adopting the publically-accepted policy announced by the Labor government. This government is not what the Australian people voted for.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:47): The Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013 effectively limits the research and development tax incentive to companies who have an aggregated assessable income of less than $20 billion. I understand that that will affect some 15 to 20 firms around the country. It is estimated to save the Australian government somewhere around $1.1 billion over the next four years. I also understand that this is legislation that is similar to legislation that was proposed by the previous Labor government—with some major differences. The differences are why we have taken the position not to support this legislation. The proposition from the previous government was tied to a whole host of job-creating initiatives that would have been directly funded as a result of the savings made. Ultimately, it is about creating a stronger economy and jobs in this country. This legislation does not do that. It simply makes the cuts, and I assume the funds go into general revenue. I will talk about that a little bit later.
To highlight how much government members support this legislation, I noticed that there was only one speaker in support of it from the coalition benches. I heard the speech from the member for Bradfield, because he was the only one who dared to come into the chamber to support this legislation. I think I could have been excused for believing that he was arguing a case against this legislation by supporting the importance of research and development to the nation. If you support it as strongly as he did—I thought he did a good job in arguing the case for the importance of research and development—then why would you cut the tax breaks that go to someone or some company that invests money in research and development? If time permits I might come back to some of the points that were made in that contribution, because I thought that he made a very good case for the importance of research and development to our nation.
I just want to go back to what Labor tied its proposition to, because there were some very important elements of our proposition that have been thrown out the window with the government's proposal. The previous Labor government set up a new Australian Industry Participation Authority, which was intended to help businesses to build their capabilities and connections to win work on major projects. The authority was set up under legislation, and it had a purpose. The purpose was to assist Australian business.
There were other aspects of the proposal. By legislating the Australian industry participation arrangements, major projects worth $500 million or more were required to implement Australian industry participation plans that gave local industries opportunities to win work on a commercial basis. That is absolutely critical, because quite often we see local businesses missing out when major contracts are put into place. Others come in from outside, but the locals do not always share in the money that is invested in those projects.
Under the previous government's proposal there was also a requirement for projects that were worth $2 billion or more, and that applied for concessions under the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme, to embed Australian Industry Opportunity officers within their global supply offices. Again, that was a mechanism to help businesses with the projects that they were trying to engage in.
Reforms to the anti-dumping system, with the appointment of an Anti-Dumping Commissioner, were quite deliberately targeted at protecting Australian industries and businesses from unfair overseas competition. In fact, we debated some changes to that proposition in this place only last week.
With the savings that would have been made, we were prepared to invest in some $500 million around the country to establish 10 industry-innovation precincts. These, in turn, would have driven business innovation and growth in areas that would have given Australian businesses a competitive advantage.
One of those proposals was for the region I represent in South Australia, on the northern side of Adelaide. I suspect there was a proposal and submission made to establish a manufacturing hub in the region. I am aware of a similar hub, the Defence Teaming Centre, in the northern region. I am also aware of the benefits that those kinds of hubs bring to the region. You get businesses working together and supporting one another. I can well recall a local business that was into manufacturing and needed a way of doing something smarter and better. The owner turned to someone in the precinct who ran a different sort of business and asked for their support and advice. Together they came up with the solution they needed. That is the kind of support that leads to innovation, and it happens when you have a precinct of businesses supporting each other.
The issue of industry innovation was also part of creating an industry-innovation network to allow businesses around Australia, including regional areas, to take part in precinct activities—to gain access to knowledge, to support one another and to create partnerships that, in turn, would enable them to prosper. There was a host of additional matters that the funding would have been used for, and I will quickly skim through some of those. There was intended to be a new, $350 million round of the Innovation and Investment Fund to stimulate private investment in innovative Australian start-up companies. We made changes to the venture capital tax arrangements to improve clarity and certainty for investors and to encourage participation by 'angel' syndicates. There were growth opportunities and a leadership development initiative to provide focused support for small- and medium-sized enterprises with a high growth potential. Furthermore, there was the extension of the successful Enterprise Connect program for SMEs to more manufacturing firms and new sectors—such as professional services, information and communication technologies and transport and logistics—thus improving the productivity of those businesses and enabling those sectors to grow.
These are just some of the things that the previous proposition included and which are now not part of this proposal, so all of those benefits are likely to be lost. I notice that, while the coalition supported the antidumping measures and changes to the R&D incentive targeting, they did not support all of the measures included in the plan for Australian jobs. That is particularly concerning. If you say to a business, 'We're going to take something from you,' at least you would be expected to say, 'But in return we will give you something back'. The opposition also did not support the Australian Jobs bill 2013, which legislated the Australian industry participation arrangements.
I return to the issue of innovation. The member for Bradfield made a terrific case for why you should not support this legislation. He was absolutely right when he said that innovation is the key to our international competitiveness, to our productivity gains and to efficiencies in business operations right across the country. It really does not matter who funds or drives the innovation because, ultimately, the benefits will flow through to the rest of the economy. So, whether it is a small company or a big company, if it invests in innovation, why should it be treated any differently from any other company in terms of its tax treatment? It should not. The benefits flow right through to the rest of society. Only last week in this place we debated the issue of research and development spending for primary industries and how important it was to the primary industry sector of this country. It is not only important but also was noted in the last decade that research and development across primary industries has been falling. We need to encourage research and development expenditure, not discourage it by taking away the tax incentives that come with it.
Under the previous government there was a proposal to provide quarterly tax incentives for funds that had been spent on research and development. I do not see that the quarterly tax incentive proposition is included in this legislation. If you want to encourage investment in research and development, you provide those kinds of incentives. If a company is spending money on research and development, just like it pays its quarterly tax through its BAS statements, I am sure it would like to do the opposite and get the credits for money it has spent. I believe that is an appropriate thing to do, and it is something this bill has left out.
This bill is simply about saving money for the government. The reason they need to save money is that they are finding they cannot balance their budget. If they do not balance their budget—and they promised before the election that they would get the budget back in the black—they have failed in their commitment to the Australian people. You can only blame the previous government for your failings for so long; the Australian people will not continue to believe the rhetoric that it is all the previous government's fault when the current government have been in office for a substantial period of time. This government have now been in office for three months, and, as each week ticks by, they become more and more responsible for the outcome of their budget and for the delivery of the budget surplus that they promised. They cannot continue to blame previous governments when they have, in fact, taken over management of the system and the economy and are in direct control of what funds they have. They are simply trying to balance their budget on the back of a proposition that affects industries and will diminish the number of dollars that are spent on research and development in this country. That can only be bad for the future of our nation.
Debate interrupted.
Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because it would be ill advised to continue with the bill without considering:
(1) the impact of Schedule 1 of this bill in relation to the protection of matters of national environmental significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(2) government plans for the delegation of approval powers to states through bilateral agreements."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ) (20:00): In accordance with standing order 133(b) I shall now proceed to put the question—the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Port Adelaide—on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (20:01): by leave—I ask that the division be withdrawn.
Division withdrawn, amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:02): by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the heading.
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 to 14), omit the item, substitute:
1 Non ‑compliance with requirement to have regard to any approved conservation advice before 31 December 2013
If a provision of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires the Minister to have regard to any approved conservation advice, then a thing is not invalid merely because the Minister failed, when doing the thing or anything related to the thing at any time before 31 December 2013, to have regard to any relevant approved conservation advice.
As I indicated earlier on during the summation on the second reading debate, these amendments have been considered in discussion with the opposition. They represent two elements. They represent an agreement that we will ensure that there is adequate coverage and protection for those matters which were determined by the previous government and will continue to be considered by the present government until 31 December of this year. It is done so that technical challenges are not used as a means of overcoming substantive decisions. This could cost, literally, millions and millions of dollars in litigation fees as well as tens of millions of dollars in delays to properly approved and considered projects. It is done in a spirit of cooperation and consideration. The amendments, in particular, sunset this clause as of 31 December this year. That has been done at the request of and in consideration of the points raised by the opposition.
I commend the amendments to the House. I note that they represent a healthy spirit of cooperation.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (20:04): I thank the minister for his remarks and for giving us notice of this late amendment on the government's part. I will make a few remarks about the origin of this amendment. It has its origin in a decision of the Federal Court earlier this year which invalidated a decision of the former minister, or the then minister, on the grounds that the conservation advice for a listed species, the Tasmanian devil, which was impacted by the controlled action submitted for approval, had not been placed before the minister at the time he made the approval decision. It is quite clear from reading the Federal Court decision and from reading the minister's decision on that matter that he had very extensive regard to the position of the Tasmanian devil and the potential impact of the controlled action on the Tasmanian devil, which is obviously a threatened species in Tasmania—and a very high-profile threatened species.
If you look at the decision you will see that there are a number of conditions imposed by the minister on the controlled action to take account of the position that the Tasmanian devil is in in Tasmania, which I think all members of the House know is relatively precarious. I think it is fair to say that the Federal Court decision, with the greatest respect, was something of a technicality. It is quite clear that all of the information contained in the conservation advice was before the minister in other forms through a lengthy process of his consideration of this application. So the full gravamen of those matters in the conservation advice were reflected in his decision.
The opposition is willing to support this amendment to give some certainty to controlled actions, which have been considered in the past—often through lengthy and expensive processes of EIS and public consultation and other processes—to ensure that those controlled actions comply with the spirit and, as far as possible, the letter of the EPBC Act. I think it is a good compromise that the minister has proposed, and we are willing to support it. We would not have supported an amendment that would have barred any legal action, ad infinitum, into the future because a minister had not had a conservation advice placed in front of him or her. This is a strong compromise, and the opposition will support this amendment.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:06): There is something going on here, and it deserves far more scrutiny than it is being given at this moment. This amendment will apply retrospectively and it will say that, for any decision that has been made until now, it does not matter if the minister did not pay any regard to expert conservation advice about how a species can be threatened. They will be off the hook. It has to be about more than the case that is being litigated in the court at the moment, because that has been adjudicated upon.
If you are at all thinking that this is some conspiracy theory, the minister let the cat out of the bag when, in his surprise at Labor's changing its position, said this a few moments ago in his second reading summing up speech: 'This amendment is fixing up the mess caused by the previous government. We are helping them out. There could potentially be more challenges based on technicalities. These could cause endless delay without having had the substantive base for improper decision making. We know that the other side'—that is, Labor—'is in agreement with this. What they are doing at the moment is in breach of what we understood to be the direction they would head in.' Then he said that everything that has happened until now will give you an out-clause. So presumably some decisions have been made without taking regard of the expert conservation advice. The minister should get up and say what those decisions are.
If we are being asked at no notice, at 10 past eight at night, to give this government and previous governments an out-clause, and the minister says, 'It's because there are potential grounds for challenges to decisions,' then simply as a matter of honesty and disclosure to this House, let alone good decision making—given that the minister just a few moments ago said there are potential legal challenges which could be made unless we rush this amendment through—it is now incumbent on the minister to say what those decisions are. What are the decisions that have been made by the previous government or by this government prior to today that are potentially the subjects of this amendment? The minister will have ample opportunity to answer that specifically. We are not interested in generalities. We know that one decision has been before the Federal Court, but he has let the cat out of the bag, so now he should explain to us exactly what is being covered up in this sordid late-night deal between Labor and the coalition to exclude the best practice environmental laws that have been in place for some time. If he does not answer or get up a couple more times during this detail stage to answer, perhaps the shadow minister at the table, who might have been the minister at the relevant time of any decision, would care to answer. Obviously—and we know this from the Hansard—discussions have gone on to try to get the government out from under bad decisions that have been made, and we have the right to know what they are. That is the first point, and I am waiting to hear from the minister or the shadow minister as to what the decisions are that are going to be affected by this.
Secondly, the minister in his summing up said, 'We are not even requiring that this protection apply to us.' The minister said this was about the previous administration: the former Labor government before 7 September. If that is right, then perhaps the minister can explain why the amendment says it applies to decisions that are made any time before 31 December 2013. I say this with respect to the minister: it cannot be the case that he is seeking this only to apply to previous administrations, because the amendment he is moving says '31 December'. Many, many decisions can be made between now and 31 December. We know that Abbott Point is one of them. Perhaps the minister can explain, given that he will have ample opportunity to do so, why he said in his summing up that he is only seeking this with respect to the previous government but moving an amendment that applies until 31 December. Everyone should be very worried about this last-minute deal that has been done between Labor and the coalition to weaken our environment protection laws. (Time expired)
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:12): Very briefly, I can assure the House that, in relation to any specific decisions of previous governments, I have no advice either formally or informally that pertains to any particular decision. This legislation was brought in on the advice that the previous processes could always have been open to challenge on technicalities. There is no specific information. I say that as a formal point in this chamber, with all of the rules of the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:12): As I expected might happen, the minister referred to one part of what I said and not to another. The minister said in his summing up that he is not requiring that the protection apply to the current government. If that is the case, why doesn't the amendment read 'at any time before 7 September'? Will the minister now, in accordance with what he told the House a few moments ago in his second reading speech, agree to amend his amendment that is currently on the floor and change '31 December' to '7 September'?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:13): Very briefly: this has been done to provide certainty and to deal with all of those that are currently in the pipeline. There are no games and no tricks. We set this out as a long-term process, and, in the spirit of cooperation with the opposition, to ensure that past decisions were not subject to being overturned on technicalities we have agreed on this approach. It is as simple as that.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:13): I have a further question for the minister. Does the minister accept that, if the amendment that he is moving is passed, he will be able to make a decision with respect to Abbott Point without having to have any regard to expert conservation advice?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:14): Actually, I can guarantee that every decision I have taken and every decision I will take is made with reference to expert conservation advice, in the presence of the conservation advice and after consideration of the conservation advice. This was a position inherited as a consequence of the previous legal decision. So I can give the guarantee on the floor of this House—again, subject to all of the strictures which apply to ministerial statements on the floor of this House—that all decisions that are relevant to date have been taken with consideration of the conservation advice, in the presence of the conservation advice and through examination of the conservation advice and that will continue to be my practice.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:15): I will ask the minister again: when he said in his second reading debate summing up, 'We are helping them out,' referring to the previous Labor government, in what way is he going to be helping the previous Labor government out by passing this amendment?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:15): I think this will be my final intervention. The point here is that decisions were taken by the previous government. They were taken in the manner to which I do not have insight—that is, not something that is known to me. Again, I give that undertaking. But on the basis of the court case in question—on the basis that that applies to at least one case—there could have been massive uncertainty to projects already begun on any possible number of cases. I do not know which they are because I have no insight into the decision-making process or the decision-making documents of the previous government. That is the convention on the passage of government.
What we have done is, very simply, to try to provide certainty in the Australian economy—certainty to projects mad—and to uphold the existing standards whilst also applying to ourselves the highest standards. So we deal with the conservation advices. They are present, they are examined and they inform the advice of the department. That has been the practice since the formation of government, and that will be the continuing practice as we proceed.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (20:16): I feel obliged to respond to some of the comments from the member for Melbourne about the minister potentially moving this amendment to help us out. I did not hear those remarks when the minister introduced this amendment. They reflect on our party, so I feel the need to respond to them. I assure the House that in no way are we supporting this amendment through any sense of being helped out by the minister and that I do not understand that to be his primary motivation at all.
As I tried to indicate when outlining the history of this decision, this, in our very clear view, was a decision taken on the basis of a technicality by the Federal Court. There was a very detailed, lengthy—exhaustive, I dare say—process of considering the impact on threatened species, particularly in this case the Tasmanian Devil, of this controlled action. Reasonable people might disagree about the outcome of that decision, but there is no question that can be legitimately asked about whether or not the impact on this threatened species was considered in great detail.
The reason we are supporting this amendment is that there were potentially a number of other controlled actions. I do not know how many, and I do not know their circumstances. But, potentially, given the nature of the Federal Court decision, a number of controlled actions in the past which may go back quite some considerable time went through very lengthy, expensive and exhaustive processes of consideration under the EPBC Act and are now fairly well advanced. In good faith the decision of the then minister should now be given that certainty. If we took the view that the decision by the Federal Court was anything more than a technicality and that there was something substantively missing from the process which was undertaken by the department and by the minister, we would not be supporting this amendment. We do not take that view, and that is why we support it.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:18): I give the minister one final opportunity to amend the date so that it does not apply to decisions that might be made prospectively by him from between now and the end of the year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:24): There have been a number of amendments circulated by me. I will not ask leave to move them together but will move them separately. I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 28), omit the Schedule.
and I refer to the reasons given during my speech on the second reading for that amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:25): I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:
(2) Page 14 (after line 23), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Amendments relating to retaining Commonwealth responsibility for approving proposed actions that significantly impact matters of national environmental significance
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1 Paragraph 11(a)
Repeal the paragraph.
2 Division 1 of Part 4
Repeal the Division.
3 Paragraphs 44(c) and (d)
Omit "and approval".
4 Subparagraphs 45(2)(a)(iii) and (iv)
Omit "and approval".
5 Section 46
Repeal the section.
6 Subsection 48(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) Subsection (1) does not limit section 47.
7 Subsection 48A(1)
Omit "46 or".
8 Subsection 48A(1)
Omit "(2) or" (first occurring).
9 Subsection 48A(1)
Omit "subsection (2) or (3) (as appropriate)", substitute "that subsection".
10 Subsection 48A(2)
Repeal the subsection.
11 Subsection 51(1)
Omit "(1)".
12 Subsection 51(2)
Repeal the subsection.
13 Subsection 51A(1)
Omit "(1)".
14 Subsection 51A(2)
Repeal the subsection.
15 Subsection 52(1)
Omit "(1)".
16 Subsection 52(2)
Repeal the subsection.
17 Subsection 53(1)
Omit "(1)".
18 Subsection 53(2)
Repeal the subsection.
19 Subsection 54(1)
Omit "(1)".
20 Subsection 54(2)
Repeal the subsection.
21 Section 55
Omit ", or accredit for the purposes of a bilateral agreement a management arrangement or an authorisation process,".
22 Subsection 59(1) (examples 1 to 3)
Repeal the examples.
23 Section 64
Repeal the section.
24 Section 65A
Repeal the section.
25 Section 66
Omit "(It does not deal with actions that a bilateral agreement declares not to need approval.)".
26 Paragraph 77A(1A)(b)
Omit "relates; or", substitute "relates."
27 Paragraph 77A(1A)(c)
Repeal the paragraph.
28 Paragraph 78(1)(ba)
Repeal the paragraph.
29 Subsection 82(2)
Omit "1,".
30 Subsection 82(2)
Omit "bilateral agreement or".
31 Subsection 146(2) (note 2)
Omit ", or make a bilateral agreement declaring,".
32 Section 528 (definition of bilaterally accredited authorisation process )
Repeal the definition.
33 Section 528 (definition of bilaterally accredited management arrangement )
Repeal the definition.
This is a very important amendment. What this will make sure is that there is no capacity for the federal government to effectively hand off to state governments the power to make major environmental approvals and—as I mentioned during my speech on the second reading—to say that, just because a state government has done something, 'That is good enough.' It is only because the federal government had the power to step in and override that that we stopped the damming of the Franklin. That is at risk unless this amendment goes ahead, because what we know—and we have heard it very clearly from this government—is that the Campbell Newmans and the Barry O'Farrells are, in the government's mind, apt protectors of our environment. This government does not mind if Premier Campbell Newman is in charge of the reef. This government does not mind if Premier Denis Napthine has carte blanche to let cows roam in the Alpine National Park—to turn the park into a paddock.
Mr Christensen: Hear, hear!
Mr BANDT: I hear a member of the government cheering loudly, and the government has just belled the cat and shown that what this is about is giving to the states the power to make decisions about major areas of national significance—things of which most Australians would presume that, if there is a federal law, would get federal protection. Most Australians would presume that, when it comes to dealing with threatened species, the federal government, under the federal legislation, will look after them. But what we know is that this government cannot act quickly enough to hand that power over to the states. That would have seen the Franklin dammed. It would have meant no powers to stop oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. It speaks volumes among the first environmental legislation that this government wants to get through by the end of the year is that which will weaken environmental protection in this country.
The Greens have been consistent. Even when the previous government went a bit wobbly on this and said, 'Maybe it would be a good idea to hand off some of these powers to the states,' we stood up to protect the environment. I hope that, when there is a division on this amendment, there will be a change of heart from the Labor Party, because it is absolutely vital that this parliament offer the strongest possible protection for areas of national environmental significance. So, for those reasons, and for the reasons that I mentioned during my speech on the second reading, I urge this House to approve amendment (2).
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:28): The government rejects the amendment proposed by the Greens for a very simple reason: we support one-stop shops. We support the idea of simplification. We support the idea of maintaining standards whilst also reducing bureaucracy and delay. If we want to get the economy moving and protect the environment, the one-stop shop is the way. It was also the way proposed at the April 2012 COAG agreement by the then Labor government, which said, to quote the communique:
First Ministers reaffirmed COAG’s commitment to high environmental standards, while reducing duplication and double-handling of assessment and approval processes.
So this was the ALP's policy in government: to support the idea of a one-stop shop for both assessment and approval processes. We are bringing that into practice in government. We are making enormous progress. We do not accept this amendment. It does not help the environment. It does enormous damage to projects. We respectfully decline to support it.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (20:29): We will support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. The minister is not correct to say that this was Labor policy. You are right that the delegation of approvals was the policy of Labor when we were in government. But it was something we explored through the COAG process and decided not to proceed with.
Let us be very clear: there is a very clear policy difference between the Labor Party and the coalition when it comes to environmental protection. This has been a long-standing pillar of environmental protection for 30 years. It is a little over 30 years since the High Court decided to uphold the then federal Labor government's decision to protect thousands of hectares of pristine Tasmanian forest from the damming of the Franklin and Gordon rivers. Since then, this has been a fundamental policy difference between the two major parties, and, as it was in the Franklin Dam case 30 years ago, it has often been a matter of some considerable controversy.
I want to put to bed this idea that we are not supportive of significant streamlining in environmental assessment processes. A one-stop shop at the end of the day really should be about streamlining and removing duplication in environmental assessments to make sure that there are not two environmental impact statement processes and that there are not two public consultation processes. We are all up for that discussion, but as a matter of principle there must in our view always be the capacity of the national environment minister to deal with matters of national environmental significance. For that reason, we support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided. [20:35]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs Griggs)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ) (20:41): The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (20:42): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the 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 opinion that the:
(1) Government has broken an election promise and back flipped on its previous pledge to oppose this measure; and
(2) Government's decision to not continue with the Australian Jobs Act, which was intended to be funded by revenue from this tax measure, is deplorable. This demonstrates the Government's lack of commitment to supporting Australian employment."
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (20:43): It is a pleasure to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and involves a whole range of really good changes that we are very happy to support in this chamber. In fact, if people care to go through the detail, they will see that the amendment bill better targets the research and development tax incentive to businesses that are more likely to increase their R&D spending in response to government incentives. It does a range of others things in delivering a greater return for taxpayer funds. What particularly interests me about this amendment bill is that this comes back to us from the last parliament, where it lapsed when parliament was prorogued. There is a broad international view that the R&D spending of small firms is more responsive than that of large firms to government incentives. This is why Labor in government moved this: to make sure that we efficiently used taxpayer funds and better targeted the R&D incentives that are in place.
I will not go through all the detail, because I do not think it is necessary to lengthen the time the House has to deal with this, but I will make a few points. It is interesting now to note that the government is putting this forward and we are all supporting it—we all think it is a good idea—but you may not be surprised that, prior to the election, the mob on the other side who are now putting this through the parliament had a different view. I cannot help but put on the record that the then coalition spokesperson, Sophie Mirabella, said the following things about the very bill that is being put forward by her people, this government:
Julia Gillard said this was about jobs and innovation but this policy announcement is destroying confidence in the tax incentive that makes industry responsible for its own initiative.
So one view in opposition; a different view in government. I am not sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you can see a pattern building here, but it goes further—
Ms Chesters: You've never seen that before—it never happens!
Mr RIPOLL: No, it never happens—the member across the chamber says. It goes further. In another quote the then coalition spokesperson, Sophie Mirabella, said:
We now know that large multinational companies won't be hit by the R&D tax cut, just like the carbon tax, and it is Aussie companies that will be struck by the cut—perversely, the opposite of Labor's claim to be creating Aussie jobs.
If you can make sense of that, you are doing better than me—because not only did that statement make no sense when they were in opposition, it does not make sense when they are in government. But what is good to see is that we are going to have the parliamentary secretary moving this really good bit of amendment legislation, which will be supported by the opposition. Labor will be supporting this because we wrote it, because we think it is actually really good.
There are a whole range of good elements to the amendments that will be good for the economy, will be good for confidence and will be good for what it does for the efficient use of taxpayer funds. I am happy that we will be supporting the amendments and we will be supporting what is before the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:47): I will make a few brief remarks about the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill. We have made the point elsewhere repeatedly that the Greens very strongly believe that science, innovation and research, and R&D more generally, is critical to our prosperity and that it is going to be vital to Australia having a strong economy after the mining boom. We are going to need something to do when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging.
Without investment in research and development our businesses will not be able to innovate and be competitive and our universities and our private sector researchers will not be able to make new discoveries and create progress—and, importantly for us, our ability to face the many challenges as a country and as a planet will be diminished. That is why we went to the election with a plan to increase Australia's spending on R&D to three per cent of GDP, both public and private—and it was fully costed. Sadly, our public sector investment has been on the decline in recent years. Indeed, the Chief Scientist has recently warned that it may go as low as two per cent in the coming year, one of the lowest national values in the OECD.
The Greens would not only boost public sector R&D spending, with our road map setting out how we would boost scientific research councils, reverse cuts to the Sustainable Research Excellence Program, fund open access publishing of government funded research and bring the best research talents to Australia and more, but we would also focus on health research.
During the election the now government made some positive noises about science and research and backed a Greens initiative in the last parliament to protect health and medical research from budget cuts. Sadly, one of the first acts of the government was to axe the position of science minister and abolish the climate change body, the Climate Commission. And, sadly, now with this bill we see further effective reductions in public and private spending on R&D.
The Labor member who was previously at the table said this is in fact Labor's policy. When it was announced under the previous government we opposed it—and we oppose it now. There will be a number of significant negative impacts from this bill including the offshoring of companies' R&D efforts, which will undermine productivity and reduce the capacity for collaborative R&D efforts and will hurt small and medium enterprises that contribute to the larger R&D efforts by big companies.
The legislation is also potentially technically flawed, as only large Australian companies will be affected while some companies with a multinational structure, and an international R&D effort, may not be covered—depending on the size of their turnover in Australia. And there will be continued uncertainty that will retard investment in R&D because this legislation is being implemented before the review and is being implemented despite promises made by the government at the election.
The bill will also reduce Australia's competitiveness because R&D regimes in many other countries around the world are far more generous. A recent report, published in October 2013, examining the world's top-100 global innovators—including industries such as semiconductors, computer hardware, automotive, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals—found that there is a direct correlation between a government's commitment to innovation, and its R&D tax policies, and its ability to attract and retain innovative organisations. Sadly, Australia is slipping down the Global Innovation Index. The index, published by the World Intellectual Property Organisation, shows that we have moved from 18th in 2010 to 21st in 2011 to 23rd in 2012.
We are also concerned about what will happen with the issue of quarterly payments, something the Greens fought for under previous parliaments and will fight to maintain. We will have more to say about that, and further amendments to move, when this bill reaches the Senate.
We need a strong research sector in Australia to help us move away from the industries of the past and to deliver the jobs of the future. This will mean ensuring that every dollar spent on research is spent well and that our great public research agencies like CSIRO, universities and our medical research institutes work together with each other, with industry and with international partners. We must increase our investment in research and target that investment strategically. We must deliver a stable and dependable funding environment to free our researchers from a rolling funding shortfall. And we must have a stable, supportive and adequate R&D tax regime for business that can enable innovation and improvement, not the flip-flopping and broken promises that we have seen regularly from the old parties.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:52): I rise to bring the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013 to a conclusion and to indicate that of course the government will not be supporting Labor's proposed amendments. Once again we find ourselves in quite an interesting situation. Once again the Australian Labor Party has actually come into the chamber and indicated that they will oppose their very own savings measure. It was extraordinary to hear comments made by a variety of Labor members in this debate—including, for example, the member for Moreton and the member for Charlton, who remarked that there was no obvious reason that this needed to take place and that the government was in some way being hypocritical with respect to the legislation. From Labor's perspective, the hypocrisy was that we would adopt a savings initiative by the Labor Party that actually plays a key role of saving some $1.1 billion and helping the process of paying down Labor's debt. If that is hypocrisy: guilty. But I remind Labor members of comments made by the now Treasurer—the then shadow Treasurer—when he remarked here in the chamber on 16 May:
Hence the Coalition may decide not to oppose any of them, doesn't commit to reversing any of them, and reserves the option to implement all of them in government, as short-term emergency measures to deal with the budget crisis Labor has created.
Far from cutting to the bone, we reserve the right to implement all of Labor's cuts, if needed, because it will take time to undo all the damage this government has done.
They are the comments that were made. How extraordinary that in dealing with the mountain of debt Labor has left behind as their legacy, in dealing with the fact that the Labor Party actually saw unemployment increase by 200,000—that is part of Labor's legacy—and in attempting to unwind the excessive spending of the Australian Labor Party, we actually say we are going to stick by some of the savings announcements they make, and it is Labor that actually opposes their very own announced savings measures.
This is the reason the Australian people simply do not trust the Australian Labor Party. It is because Labor will say anything and do anything. What I personally find the most galling aspect of this debate is that Labor has said on numerous occasions how it is the coalition that apparently is the party for billionaires, and how it is the coalition that apparently is the party for big business. But Labor's amendment in relation to this bill actually seeks to reinstate a tax incentive for businesses with a turnover of in excess of $20 billion. That is what Labor's amendment does. Labor's amendment is to provide a gift back to Australia's biggest businesses—businesses with more than $20 billion worth of turnover. If that is not a gift to those businesses, then I do not know what is. I say to the Australian Labor Party: your hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. Do not even pretend to be concerned about Australia's so-called billionaires and about the mining tax and about incentives for big business and incentives for the wealthy when Labor itself comes into the chamber and moves an amendment opposing their very own savings measure and actually attempts to reinstate tax incentives—a tax cut, effectively—for businesses worth over $20 billion. It is extraordinary that that is Labor's approach. But I honestly should not say I am surprised, because I am not. It is entirely consistent with the approach of the now opposition, who say they will oppose everything. They take opposition quite literally, and they will oppose their very own savings measure.
I thank those who contributed to this debate, certainly from the government side—I thank the member for Bradfield for his contribution—but not so much opposition members. The bill does target the research and development tax incentive at small and medium companies, which are more responsive to such incentives than larger enterprises. From 1 July 2013 the R&D tax incentive is limited to companies with an aggregated assessable income of less than $20 billion. Larger companies will instead receive the normal income tax treatment for their R&D expenditures. This measure will produce an estimated revenue gain of $1.1 billion over the forward estimates period, an amount that will be available for other government priorities. And that is predominantly to repay Labor's debt.
The government does not support the amendments that have been moved by the opposition. They are amendments that seek to advantage companies with $20 billion of assessable income—extraordinary, given Labor's narrative over the past week or more. The government does not support the amendments because it is actually now the government who have adopted Labor's savings to try to make a difference to paying down the $430-plus billion of debt that Labor has racked up. For all of those reasons and the fact that this is a better targeted incentive as a consequence of the government adopting it, I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:59): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:00): Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Shortland Electorate: New South Wales Government
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (21:00): In this, the last adjournment debate of the year, I would like to offer my thanks and give credit to the people of Shortland electorate. I thank them very much for placing their faith in me and for re-electing me at the last election, and I give them a guarantee that I will deliver to them. I know that health, education and the environment are all very high priorities for the people of the electorate that I represent, and I will work to see that we have a strong, safe and inclusive society. Unfortunately, over the last 12 months, my office has been inundated with constituents who have raised state government issues with me. I do not believe that the state members within Shortland electorate have a common goal with me and share my desire to deliver to the people of the area.
Be it the Department of Housing, the police, education or health, the story is the same: the state member is unavailable to assist. Recently, there has been the issue of GST on residential parks. Members on both sides of this parliament have expressed concern that residents living in these residential parks may be forced to pay a GST on their rental. That is very unlike the response of state members in my area to the new residential parks laws that the New South Wales government have put in place. People have been very disturbed by the way it has been handled, and the state members have been missing in action when residents have wished to talk to them. There is a chronic shortage of social housing, and the O'Farrell government is responding by selling housing stock. Surely this will make the housing crisis even worse.
The people of Swansea have been battling to have their police station operating for 24 hours a day for a very long time. Unfortunately, even though the state member promised the people of Swansea prior to the last state election that he would ensure that the police station was operating 24 hours a day, he still has not delivered.
Belmont police station is being upgraded—I congratulate the O'Farrell government on choosing to upgrade Belmont police station and Belmont courthouse—and the police from there are to be moved on a temporary basis to Swansea. There has been a 12-month process during which approval for the redevelopment has been stuck in a position where nothing has happened. I made some inquiries as to why this was the case. Was it a council hold-up? We all have problems from time to time with councils being a little bit slow. But, no, the problem was that the O'Farrell government was not giving the information to the local council, even though they had requested it. I am very hopeful that that will happen soon. But once the police station has been upgraded I have great fears that Swansea may not even have a police station. I can see that the O'Farrell government will sell it off just the way they are currently selling off the education office in Swansea. The district education office is in the process of closing down and moving into inner Newcastle because the state O'Farrell government is selling the building. It is a very sad state of affairs. Fire stations have been taken off-line, leaving communities at risk. The O'Farrell government has been selling off all of the electricity stocks. In Newcastle, the Port of Newcastle has been sold.
When Labor was in government they invested in health. They gave $20 billion to the states to address shortages. In New South Wales, money is being taken out of the system. Staff are being treated appallingly. Staff working at John Hunter hospital have been told that they can only use UHT milk, and the waiting lists continue to grow. The way that the O'Farrell government has handled workers compensation in New South Wales and the way that they have really disadvantaged workers is appalling. There is one young woman that I have been working with over a long period of time. All she needs is a back operation, yet the changes to the workers compensation laws make it impossible. I think it is appalling that the state government refuses to treat the people of Shortland electorate with the respect that they deserve.
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Government Programs
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (21:05): I would like to take the opportunity of this adjournment debate to highlight the policy hypocrisy and deceit that has occurred in Eden-Monaro over the last six years. One of the classics is the deceit about the National Broadband Network—the NBN. For six years the former Labor member claimed that he would turn Eden-Monaro into the Silicon Valley of Australia. What an empty rhetorical deceit! Labor's NBN promises in Eden-Monaro were a fantasy. Not one case of fibre-to-the-premises was completed under the NBN in Eden-Monaro, despite years of gasbagging about it. But it was worse than that, much worse. He repeatedly told people that Bombala timber mill had been connected to the NBN and that the only reason it had proceeded is because of the NBN. That is patently false, yet he repeated it, continually misleading people right across the electorate. It is now up to the coalition to fix this monumental problem and get the NBN rolled out.
Equally, the former Labor MP told us that Labor would put a GP super clinic in Jindabyne. Has that happened? The answer is no. After years of promises, there is no GP super clinic there. In an act of the utmost cynicism, just five days before this year's election, the symbolic sod turning on the project occurred. To add to the incompetence, at the death-knell just before the election, the former member offered additional money for the project in order to buy votes in the region. The people saw through it and comprehensively rejected him. I am pleased to say that the new coalition government has committed $5.5 million to the project, and it will be built.
However, one of the most egregious examples of misleading the electorate occurred with the Regional Development Australia Fund program. There was simply a massive cash splash before the election by the former Labor MP in one of the crassest attempts to buy votes I have ever seen. Tens and tens of millions of dollars in spending were promised, without any explanation of how it would be paid for. Indeed, as each week has gone by since the election, I have discovered more unfunded promises that the former member made that deceived and hoodwinked people. He told people that the 'money is in the bank' when that was patently untrue. Now, many hundreds of people across the electorate are becoming aware of just how badly they were deceived.
Where we can we will fund projects, but we cannot fund them all. For example, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development announced last week that we are committed to the $10 million Port of Eden redevelopment project. The former member spent years telling the local community that he would secure the funding for this vital project. After six years of government, just weeks out from the election, he made an empty promise that it would be funded. However—dear me!—they ran out of time to sign the contracts before the election. What a pity. This project will proceed under us.
The people of Queanbeyan are alive to the deceit that occurred in their area. During the election campaign the Labor member ran wall-to-wall negative television advertising attacking me personally for the proposed reduction in Public Service numbers through natural attrition. Since the election, the Department of Finance has revealed that the Labor Party was in the process of cutting 14,500 jobs in the Public Service, mostly with redundancies that had not been covered by the budgeted forward estimates.
What hypocrites Labor have been. They also went around whipping up a fear campaign on education funding. Yet, after the election we have seen that, just weeks before the election, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister for Education, ripped some $1.2 billion out of schools funding. That was never announced. It was just put into the budget forward estimates in such a way as to conceal the real nature of the cuts. The people of Eden-Monaro were duped. But we have restored that $1.2 billion finding. Schools now have funding certainty.
The people of Eden-Monaro voted to end the massive increase in debt that occurred in the last six years. In that time, Labor turned a situation where the government had $50 billion in the bank to one where we had net debt of over $200 billion—gross debt rising to $300 billion this week. They turned a $20 billion surplus into an expected $30 billion deficit this year alone.
For six years they just spent money without responsibility. They tried to buy the last election without knowing where the money was coming from. We need to get the budget back into order so that we can sustainably fund the projects that the people of Eden-Monaro need and want. In the end, people will judge us by what we do. The empty promises of our opponents are increasingly being exposed.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (21:10): I rise to make some comments about the recent efforts by the federal government to attack the ABC. Before I do, I would like to respond to the comments made by the member for Eden-Monaro. He talks about deceit. The member for Eden-Monaro, of course, was one of the strongest advocates for Work Choices that this parliament will ever see—a deception on the Australian people. Every worker in Eden-Monaro should not forget that. When Work Choices was introduced, you could not get a bigger supporter for Work Choices and the ripping away of penalty rates and conditions of employment from those people, including all the workers in Eden-Monaro, than the member for Eden-Monaro.
I rise today to talk about, as I said, some of the concerns I have with comments made by members of the government in relation to the ABC. The ABC is a very important institution. The ABC is an independent statutory body and needs, in my view, to maintain sufficient funding so we can have an independent voice in the media.
I would like to quote Malcolm Long from the Financial Review of last week. He said in relation to the IPA director John Roskam's efforts to convince the government to sell the ABC:
This is a nonsense—Tea Party-style fundamentalism at its most mindless and irrational. Real-world experience in the UK, Canada, New Zealand and even the United States, along with Australia, shows public broadcasting has a critical place in a free society.
What we have had recently is the Minister for Communications summonsing the chief executive officer of the ABC to his office, which of course is not the proper way to proceed; Senator Cory Bernardi seeking the slashing of the ABC's budget; and other commentators jumping on the bandwagon, with, I would suggest, a conflict of interest, working as they do for other media outlets. Janet Albrechtsen called for the sacking of Mark Scott, and the journalist Greg Sheridan called the ABC an ideological institution.
This is an assault on the ABC that looks very much organised, organised by those members of the government that want to see the end of an independent voice in this country, a statutory body that has served listeners and viewers well over many, many years. They want to cow the ABC into reporting in a way favourable to the government. I understand that, because some of the reporting of some private organisations may favour the government, which is entirely up to those organisations, the government may not understand what an independent voice is. They so often see media outlets defend or rationalise, or give the view of a government such favour that they cannot hear an independent voice when they are listening to one. But the fact is this: in a civil democracy it is vital that there is public money put aside to ensure that vested interests alone do not prevail in this space.
As I said, if you look at the BBC in Britain, at institutions in Canada or even at public broadcasting in the United States, you find that they are institutions funded by taxpayer dollars to provide that form of independence. At the moment we are seeing, in some media circles, an attempt to change the Australian viewers' and listeners' relationship with this august institution and to prevent it reporting independently and fairly. This must stop. This is the Prime Minister bullying the ABC.
Bruce Highway
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (21:15): When my colleagues and I drove the Bruce Highway in July 2012 we set out to cover some 1,700 kilometres of what Queenslanders less than affectionately refer to as 'the goat track'. I am proud to say that I covered every single kilometre of the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns, accompanied by the now Deputy Prime Minister, by the Parliamentary Secretary at the table here, my friend the member for Gippsland, and by 10 other Liberal-National party federal and state MPs from along the coast, who represent various sections of the Bruce Highway.
My electorate of Dawson has more kilometres of BruceHighway than any other electorate—more than 400 kilometres—so it was particularly important for me tohave with us the now Deputy Prime Minister, who is also theMinister for Infrastructure.
Ou r trip did two important things. I t highlighted the importance of the Bruce Highway to Queenslanders in terms of both economic value and amenity to the community, and i t also ensured that all MPs, state and federal, really understood the problems : where they were , what they were a nd the urgency of each of the fixes. It worked—the Liberal- National g overnment now has a serious plan that is the result of a calm, measured approach and a genuine desire to get the job done.
Our commitment , which we took to the election, provides an additio nal investment of $6.7 billion i n the Bruce Highway. With that investment we will partner with the Queensland g overnment to deliver an $8.5 billion upgrade of the Bruce Highway over the next decade . Together with a $1 billion commitment to the Gateway Motorway we have nearly $10 billion for our major transport arter ies in Queensland. The fact that our commitment dwarfed Labor's half-baked plan and inadequate funding commitment is one of the many reasons Queenslanders bought into our plan. Our plan includes more in dollar terms , but it is also better targeted. We are addressing the most urgent needs because we got off our backsides and did the hard work to find out exactly what wa s needed. Our plan is also backed by a government with the will to do the job and the reputation for getting the best value for taxpayer dollars.
The response in Queensland to our plan — and to our trip in July 2012—has been fantastic. People appreciate that the Bruce Highway is being taken seriously for once, and they know they will see real results because we are a government that says what it means and does what it says. There has been a noticeable boost in confidence — in business, in industry and in the community generally— since the election , because Queenslanders anticipate real action on axing the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax, cutting red tape and , most importantly for us, fixing the Bruce Highway . What i s more exciting for Queenslanders is that the Bruce Highway upgrades could be targeted as a means of stimulating the economy.
While in Townsville recently, the Deputy Prime Minister said he would ' absolutely ' recommend that North Queensland sections of the Bruce Highway be fast-tracked if the government needed to stimulate the economy. It certainly beats investing in over - priced school halls and insulation that burns your house down. The Prime Minister is quoted in the Townsville Bulletin :
"I am encouraging the Queensland Government to advance the design of the projects that we have outlined in this 10-year strategy so we have a capacity to advance them and our economic circumstances," he said.
"If there is a need (to stimulate the economy) there needs to be projects ready to go immediately."
Unlike the sugar hit of throwing out $900 che ques to dead people and overseas backpackers, accelerating upgrades on the Bruce H ighway w ill create employment and boost business in the short term. In the long term, it builds on an asset that increases GDP and boosts revenues.
So the Bruce Highway convoy and the trip we did over those 1,700 kilometres was incredibly effective. It was effective because we consulted with local highway users , stakeholders , c ouncils , t ransport companies , r oad safety groups and i ndustries that rely on the highway . As a result w e know what is needed . We know what is needed first . We hav e a measured, carefully-thought- out plan . We have the funding commitment . We have the commitment of government , a nd now we have the distinct possibility of fast-tracking these Bruce Highway projects. If g oat t rack gets fast-tracked it will be not just Queenslanders who will benefit ; it will be the entire nation.
Tasmanian Forests Agreement
Ms OWENS ( Parramatta ) ( 21:20 ): There was an interesting photograph in the Australian this morning. It was a photograph of a forest in Tasmania. Standing in it were two very unlikely colleagues. Terry Edwards of the Forest Industries Association and the Wilderness Society's Vica Bayley are standing there together, trying to make the point to Prime Minister Abbott that he should reconsider his commitment, prior to the election, to winding back the World Heritage expansion of 100,000 hectares which is at the heart of the Tasmanian forestry agreement.
If the Prime Minister persists with that it is probably the first time in the world that a government has actively sought to wind back a World Heritage listing. But in this case it would do more than just environmental damage; it would threaten to rip apart the Tasmanian forest agreement. Those of us who watched that agreement being negotiated in recent years would be aware that it was a gruelling negotiation. It was on again; it was off again. There were walk-outs; there were walk-back-ins. There were lines held and things given on both sides until eventually we had an agreement which was supported by the forestry industry and the environmental movement as something that is incredibly good for Tasmania . In fact, we have recently seen members of the Wilderness Society go to Japan with the forestry industry and promote the sustainable forestry practices of Tasmania, something that we would not have dreamt of five years ago or 10 years ago or 30 years ago—and the conflict has gone on for that long.
The Tasmanian Forests Agreement provides for a guaranteed supply of at least 137,000 cubic metres per year of high-quality saw logs from native forests and for the protection of over 500,000 hectares of native forests with important conservation values, which includes 100,000 additional hectares in the World Heritage area. This provides certainty both for industry and for conservation outcomes for some of the most important old-growth forests in the world. The Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement and the national partnership agreement between the federal and Tasmanian governments outline a number of commitments and funding from both governments to support the implementation of forests agreements. Jointly, the Australian Labor government and the Tasmanian government have committed over $380 million to the forest process, including federal funding of over $330 million.
So what we have here is an agreement that took an incredible effort by people on both sides of the argument and by the Tasmanian and federal governments over many years. It is an agreement which leaves the Tasmanian industry with something of great value. The Tasmanian forestry industry now has what is called the Forest Stewardship Council certification, which they call the 'green stamp' for timber products produced in Tasmania. In many of our international markets, including the key market of Japan, that green stamp for timber products is a requirement for export.
Mr Nikolic: It's a shameful destruction of the forestry industry.
Ms OWENS: In fact, the forestry industry spokespeople are telling us—and they are telling the government, if they care to listen—that this green stamp, the Forest Stewardship Council, the FSC, is incredibly important for the future of Australian forestry industries. Malaysian-owned Ta Ann, which is a veneer maker in Tasmania that employs 110 people, uses only the FSC-approved wood in its timber mills and is now using that FSC certificate to promote its products in new markets and to break into the plywood-manufacturing industry in Australia. It is a market that is currently dominated by imports from countries where forest practices are simply not as rigorous as they are in Tasmania.
Mr Nikolic: Then why don't we grow the forest industry?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bass will let the member complete her statement.
Ms OWENS: The member for Bass is having a lovely time interjecting, but he might like to listen to his own representatives of the forest industry down there. Mr Edwards, for example, fears that the Forest Stewardship Council certification scheme will be undermined if that 100,000 World Heritage expansion, which is at the very heart of the deal, is dumped. He is telling the government that up to 1,000 logging-related jobs could be lost in the short term if this deal is dumped. I urge the government, including the Prime Minister, to listen to the voices coming from the forest industry, Tasmania and the environmental movement. (Time expired)
Forrest Electorate: Manea, Dr Ernest
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (21:25): I rise to pay tribute to a stalwart of the Forrest electorate and Bunbury community who was lost to us in October. Dr Ern Manea was a man known to nearly all throughout his time as a Bunbury physician, as the mayor and as a community activist. He was born in Albany, Western Australia, in 1926, of the dynamic mix of Irish and Greek heritage. Perhaps it was this mix that resulted in his fiery passion for his local community.
He completed his medical training at the University of Western Australia and the University of Adelaide and completed an internship at the Royal Perth Hospital. In 1952 Ern arrived in Bunbury to work as a GP in a large Bunbury practice, a role he maintained until 2002, when he struck out to start his own practice at the sprightly age of 76. He retired in 2010, aged 84, having delivered over 3½ thousand babies, performed countless surgeries and treated the ills of the greater Bunbury community for over 58 years.
Ern Manea also served 15 years as Mayor of Bunbury and a further nine years on council. He was on the board of GWN, was a past president of the International Trotting Association and was a member of Rotary. Dr Manea lobbied hard for a local faculty of Edith Cowan University and served on its board. He also was instrumental in establishing the Bunbury Regional Art Galleries and was one-time president of the South Bunbury Football Club. He was a life member of over a dozen local groups in Bunbury and the patron of many.
For his work in the Bunbury community Dr Manea received the Order of Australia and was also made an Officer of the Order of Australia. Local Manea College is also named after him. However, it was his role with the St John of God order in Bunbury, which resulted in the development of the St John of God private hospital in Bunbury, that I want to highlight to the House today. Ern Manea was very close to the order, who adopted him as one of their own. He chaired the local community board for many years, and without his work Bunbury might well not have a private hospital today—and what a hospital it has become.
The growth of service delivery in Bunbury, especially in cancer therapy, owes much to St John's and much to Dr Ern Manea. Their contribution to health care in the south-west cannot be underestimated. The co-location of the private and state hospitals on the same site in Bunbury has been a success story that, I hope, will one day be repeated in regional areas around Australia. Ern Manea's contribution to this outcome makes him one of the greatest servants the community of the south-west has seen.
I also want to offer my deepest sympathy to Ern's lifetime partner—his wife, Snookie—to his family and to his close friends. The community of Bunbury was very well served by Dr Ern Manea throughout his life, and he certainly will be missed by many in our community.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being almost 9.30 pm and there being no further members wishing to participate, the debate having thus concluded, the House stands adjourned until 12 pm tomorrow.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 21: 30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr McCormack: To move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a new Australian High Commission in Nairobi, Kenya.
Mr McCormack: To move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO Consolidation Project, Australian Capital Territory.
Mr McCormack: To move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development and construction of housing for Defence at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory.
Mr McCormack: To move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Integrated fit‑out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at the site known as Site 5 and 6, the Revitalising Central Dandenong Project, Dandenong, Victoria.
Mr McCormack: To move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Reserve Bank of Australia, National Banknote Site, Craigieburn, Victoria.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ) took the chair at 10:31.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Kingston Electorate: Sports Funding
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:31): I rise today to speak about a very important issue for my local community—that is, the future federal funding that was committed to the planned upgrade of Bice Oval in Christies Beach. The former federal Labor government promised to contribute $600,000 for a much-needed upgrade to this popular community facility, if re-elected. I worked hard with the local clubs at Bice Oval to secure this pledge for a number of refurbishments—including the much-needed upgrade of change rooms, which desperately need an overhaul. The fact that there is inadequate lighting also restricts the use of this very popular facility, which many clubs use on a daily basis. The funding would mean a brand-new change room could be constructed on the oval and it would mean sufficient lighting could be installed to allow for night sport to be played. Regrettably, following the election of the Abbott government, the future of this funding remains in doubt. My correspondence to the Minister of sport remains unanswered: two letters seeking urgent confirmation that this project can proceed as planned, one dated 2 October 2013 and one dated 28 November 2013. These letters have been completely ignored. All of the fantastic sporting clubs that call Bice Oval home, including the Christies Beach Football Club, the Southern District Cricket Club and the Christies Beach Sports and Social Club, are now calling on the Abbott government to listen to the community and honour the pledge.
The president of the Southern District Cricket Club, Harvey Jolly, has said that the upgrade would benefit hundreds of locals in our community who come together every week to play at Bice Oval, to watch a game, or to train there. There is much junior development sport there. This funding would also show that the federal government recognises local-level sport as an important contribution to local communities. The time has come now for the Minister for Sport to listen to the close to 500 local residents who have signed my petition on change.org calling for this funding to be delivered. I am a big supporter of local sporting groups in my community. I know just how important this funding is, both to the players and to the organisers, which is why I will continue to push for this commitment from the Abbott government to that $600,000 for this much-needed upgrade.
Despite the change of government, I will continue to lobby on behalf of local sporting groups. The Abbott government needs to show us that they are serious about investing in local communities and supporting local sporting clubs. Regrettably, there are a number of projects—this is just one in my local community—that have been put on hold indefinitely or scrapped following the election of the Abbott government. The government is not doing its job in our local community. I will continue to hold the government to account and ensure that they deliver not only to the Bice Oval project but also on many others. (Time expired)
Macquarie Electorate: Bushfires
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (10:34): I would like to take this opportunity to express my dismay at the behaviour of those opposite during what has been a very difficult time for my electorate following the bushfires. The federal member for Sydney has made absolutely false and misleading, indeed scurrilous, claims against me. Like an irresponsible teenager, she has used social media as a means of spreading these inaccuracies. I find it amusing that the member for Sydney has claimed: 'She is not in the Blue Mountains very much, is she?' Well, I call on her to spend a week with me. I ask: where was the member for Sydney during a natural disaster in my electorate? I certainly failed to see her on the ground during what was a harrowing and terrifying experience for our community. I have stood with members of the public in front of their houses that have been burnt to ashes. I have embraced people in the evacuation centres, who were not sure what they would face once they got the all-clear to go home.
I have spoken with young people, faced with losing everything, who were not sure what their next step was. Many of them were in the middle of their HSC exams, very anxious and concerned about their future. During these times there were no cameras rolling, no media present. It was just me and my community. But it seems that those opposite do not see any value in those things. They are only interested in presenting a front of caring.
I have not stopped working for and responding to the needs of my community since this disaster struck. I have been absolutely vocal in my support for the coalition's commitment to deliver concessional loans to small business. I, along with my colleagues, am working to have this measure implemented as soon as is physically possible. I have been engaged with key small-business agencies, as well as the tourism sector, to assess the full extent of the impacts of the bushfires on these industries. They have already lost close to $40 million.
Last Friday I was delighted to be in Springwood and to be part of the announcement by the Commonwealth Bank, which has committed $50,000 to Habitat for Humanity, which are going to bring A Brush With Kindness work teams on the ground. It is because of my relationship with Habitat for Humanity, having witnessed their work in the past, that I was able to introduce them to Phil Koperberg and the recovery committee. This has resulted in a wonderful partnership, which will make a real difference to those on the ground, particularly those who are underinsured and uninsured.
The weekend before, I was able to witness CityCare deliver more than 300 Christmas hampers, at a picnic in Winmalee, to families affected by the bushfires. That was the result of my work to bring together this community organisation with the recovery efforts. It is these practical measures that I am focused on, in delivering for my community.
The member for Sydney has accused the coalition of being sneaky and underhand when referring to disaster relief arrangements. Yet Labor had implemented these very same arrangements five times during government. Is the member calling her own behaviour sneaky and underhand? That is not to mention the deceitful and dishonest behaviour we saw during Labor's six years in government—which, of course, I do not have time to outline.
Iramoo Primary School
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:37): I rise today to speak about the great work being undertaken at Iramoo Primary School in my electorate. I do so to demonstrate through a specific example that inequity in education, the existence of which was confirmed last week by the PISA report, can be overcome in our schools through system-wide improvement, focused on building leadership and teacher capacity.
Iramoo is a primary school with significant and increasing disadvantage. To provide context, under the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage ranking, the national average is 1,000. Four years ago, Iramoo had an ICSEA ranking of 940 and grade 5 students performed 50 points below the state average in reading, writing and numeracy.
In 2012 it had an ICSEA ranking of 928. The measure of disadvantage had actually increased and yet Iramoo students performed above state average in reading, writing and numeracy. In fact, they demonstrated growth higher than the state mean in every area that was assessed. Most impressive was the mean growth of 107 points for students between grade 3 and grade 5, particularly when compared to the state mean growth of 81 points.
They achieved this by utilising targeted federal government national school partnership funding. With this financial assistance, Iramoo started coaching for teachers and early intervention programs for students. And they demonstrated, like so many others in my electorate, what happens when you are serious about addressing inequity, and about improving teaching and learning.
When I visited the school two weeks ago, the principal, Moira Findlay, spoke at length of the work of the last four years and of the need for the work to continue. Just imagine what they could do with adequate Better Schools funding. But, instead of certainty, they have confusion. Because of those opposite, the funding that Iramoo Primary School needs to continue its vital programs is now in doubt. Not only have they reduced long-term funding for education but they have also given the Victorian government licence to cut their own contributions. With no strings attached, the Napthine government can now use federal money in place of its own funding.
We are dealing with a state government that ripped away money from TAFE and ripped away money from vocational education. Just like its federal counterpart, it is not a government that seems to care about education.
So I call on this government and Minister Pyne to end the doubt, to fulfil the promise of a unity ticket on education and to let Iramoo continue its four-year journey. Who knows how far this school and these students could go and what contribution they could make if we had a government willing to invest in their future?
Barker Electorate: Community Development Grants
Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:39): I rise today to speak on the very positive impacts for my electorate of Barker of the coalition government's community development grants program. The coalition is delivering on its commitment to support regional communities in Barker through this program, which is providing significant support for projects in Renmark, Waikerie and Port Macdonnell. As announced last week, the government will provide $376,280 for the Renmark Town Centre Revitalisation project and $441,272 to the Waikerie Sports Precinct, and up to $726,127 will also be provided for the Port Macdonnell Marine Infrastructure Development.
I applaud the expedient work of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development for his responsible and diligent management of these project applications. I also sincerely thank the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development for the work he has done in expediting this matter. It is also important to record the contribution made to these applications by RDA Murraylands & Riverland Chief Executive Brenton Lewis and RDA Limestone Coast Chief Executive Officer Mike Ryan.
The community development grants program is part of a regional community funding package which is providing up to $342 million towards 300 community projects across Australia. The government's announcement confirmed funding for projects which were left uncontracted under the former Labor government, including regional development grant funds rounds 2, 3 and 4.
The Renmark project, undertaken in conjunction with the Renmark Paringa Council and due for completion at the end of September next year, will upgrade and rejuvenate Renmark's town centre, which is located on the banks of the River Murray. It is part of Renmark's larger Community Integration Vision project to develop the whole of the town.
The Waikerie project, undertaken in conjunction with the District Council of Loxton Waikerie, is due for completion at the end of April next year. It will be the second stage in upgrading Waikerie's community sporting facilities by building new multiple-purpose sports courts, clubrooms, covered spectator seating and a covered playground. The current indoor community sports centre will be extended to include a new entry kiosk and members meeting area.
The Port Macdonnell project, undertaken in conjunction with the District Council of Grant and due for completion by the end of August 2016, will construct a 90-metre concrete wharf as an extension to the existing facility at Port Macdonnell on South Australia's Limestone Coast. The existing boat ramp will also be widened and upgraded to provide four lanes capable of handling heavy tonnage vessels, and two floating concrete pontoons will be incorporated to improve user safety.
I am very proud of these funding announcements and believe they reflect my commitment to work with the local communities and negotiate positive outcomes throughout Barker. Through responsible management of the budget, the coalition has found additional funds for these important uncontracted projects at Renmark, Waikerie and Port Macdonnell, all without Labor's mining tax. I am proud to have gone in to bat for my community on these projects and am personally rapt with the result. It is a tremendous win for my region and further evidence that the Liberal Party understands the needs of regional communities and how to service those needs in a fiscally responsible manner.
Corio Electorate: Health Services
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:43): Geelong is lucky to be well serviced by Barwon Health, a fabulous hospital network which does a great job in our region, but Barwon Health itself acknowledges that the part of Geelong which is in most need of medical facilities is the north of Geelong. Its studies indicate that there are diseases which are more prevalent in the north, such as diabetes, and that there are fewer services in the north to support them. What is needed is a facility which can extend those services into the north and provide for day procedures. This is now the desire and ambition of a number within Geelong.
In the last state budget, the state government committed $50 million to building such a facility in Geelong's south, in Waurn Ponds. That is obviously a great result for Waurn Ponds. It actually did not meet the area of greatest need within the Geelong community, which is Geelong's north. That need is now a screaming issue and must be met.
There are both federal and state roles to be played here. To be fair, principally this is ultimately going to be a decision of a state government to provide the bulk of the funding for the building of such a facility, but the federal government can play a role in leading the way. At the election, I was very proud to be able to make an election promise on behalf of Labor that, if elected, we would provide $1 million to do a lot of the preliminary work to get such a facility off the ground. By contrast, the Liberals promised absolutely zero, which was consistent with their attitude across the board in Geelong, and particularly in Geelong's north where there was not a single election commitment made to the people of Corio.
In Saturday's editorial of the Geelong Advertiser, there was a call for the federal government to take a lead—notwithstanding that it did not make a commitment during the election—to not let this issue die. I echo that call by saying that there does need to be a commitment made by both the federal Liberal government and the state Liberal government to come to the party and make sure that we have a proper medical facility in Geelong's north and that the north of Geelong not be ignored as it has been for far too long by the Liberal Party.
On that topic, I also want to mention the issue of Avalon airport and Jetstar. This is a critical test for the Abbott government and the Napthine government to do what it takes to make sure that Jetstar continues its service at Avalon airport. Carping at Linfox, frankly has been an outrage on the part of the Premier of Victoria. We are lucky that we have a company there that has the long-term vision which is going to be needed for this long-term play. It would be a mistake for Jetstar to leave Avalon airport, which is at the heart of one of the fastest growing regions of Australia, Melbourne's south-west. I call on them to hold off their decision for another year, to give Avalon a chance.
Cook Electorate: Cook Community Awards
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (10:46): I rise to pay tribute to the selfless volunteers in my electorate of Cook. The Cook Community Awards acknowledge selfless volunteers who serve our local organisations quietly, passionately and consistently over many years. Last Saturday, families, friends and supporters of a special collection of volunteers gathered in Sutherland to honour the service of so many quiet achievers, as the Cook awards were presented to volunteers from local schools, sporting clubs, church organisations, surf clubs, youth clubs, Meals on Wheels, seniors and disability services. Over 40 recipients were provided with Cook awards. Combined, they make up more than 750 years of service in our community, which is an extraordinary achievement and was a pleasure to recognise. They each made that decision to make a difference in their own lives and to their community; they have achieved a great amount.
The Cook Medal was awarded to Mrs Betty Etherden, who was nominated by the Parent to Parent Association. That association was established in the 1980s to provide a direct service to people with disabilities. It supports families in the Sutherland Shire. Mrs Etherden embodies the dedication of so many volunteers who give so much to our community when they have little to give themselves and often face additional and significant challenges in their own lives. She was a founding member and remained an active volunteer all these years until her very recent retirement. Not only does she care for others; she remains the carer for her intellectually disabled son and disabled husband. It was an honour to award Mrs Etherden the Cook Medal for her dedicated service. She represents so many other dedicated people in our community who think first of others and follow that through with actions over a long period of time.
On Saturday, together with the four Bate Bay surf clubs—Elouera, Wanda, North Cronulla and South Cronulla—we set up the Cook Community Classic. The classic raises money to support community organisations and culminates with a family fun day and surf carnival at South Cronulla beach and park. This year, the festival raised over $110,000 for 45 charities, bringing the classic's cumulative fundraising total to well over $400,000 since we first started many years ago.
It is a community event run on the generosity of local volunteers. We thank all of those volunteers, particularly our sponsors: IMB, Qantas, The Leader, Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport, SITA Australian, Caltex, AHA, Olsens, McDonalds Sutherland Shire Restaurants, ANSTO, VICI, Westfield Miranda, Sharks, Storage King Kurnell. I particularly want to thank Julie Adams and Pam Brown, and Louise and Meredith from my office, for their tireless efforts to bring this wonderful event together each and every year. It is servicing so many great local community organisations in the shire, and we are so pleased to be able to play a small role in assisting them to raise the funds that they need to do the great job they do for our shire.
Centenary of Canberra
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:49): As we rapidly approach the dawn of a new year, I rise today to reflect on 2013, Canberra's centenary year. This year we celebrated 100 years Canberra as the national capital—100 years since Lady Denman, wife of then Governor-General Lord Denman, stood upon the newly laid foundation stone and announced that the name of the new Australian capital would be Canberra. And what a celebration it has been.
The centenary celebrations have highlighted the diversity and creativity of the people and industries in Canberra and the region, as well as the significant and ongoing contribution that Canberra makes to the nation. This year, we have truly seen Canberra at its best, from the Canberra Day celebrations in March, which included a symphony especially commissioned for Canberra and the world's longest champagne bar, to the international sporting events that have been held in Canberra from the very first time, such as the golf earlier this year. Something near and dear to my heart was the commissioning of a special ballet that paid tribute to this wonderful Parliament House and that was specifically designed for the Canberra Theatre stage.
We have learnt more about the communities we are connected with in the Murray-Darling Basin through the One River project, we have seen the best theatre Australia has to offer through the Canberra Theatre special Centenary season, we have recognised the importance of the ACT's unique villages through Unmade Edges and we have opened previously inaccessible parts of the ACT with the Centenary Trail. We have learnt more about our history and we have thought more about our future. The program of centenary celebrations has been outstanding and, if I were to detail my own highlights, we would be here for hours.
The centenary has enabled Canberrans to celebrate what they love about this city, and I hope that it has allowed Australians outside of Canberra to think of their national capital in a new light—to think of Canberra not just as the home of parliament but as a thriving, diverse and special place. I hope it has renewed their pride in their nation's capital and the great ideals of democracy on which it was built.
I would like to formally thank and acknowledge the work of the Centenary of Canberra Unit, especially Creative Director Robyn Archer—she is an Australian icon—and the ACT government for its vision, tireless work and dedication in making this year possible.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the Canberra area, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. While we celebrate 100 years of Canberra as the national capital, it is important to remember that their connection with this land is measured not in hundreds of years but in tens of thousands of years and that their role as owners and custodians of this land is as important today as it was thousands of years ago and will be into the future.
In turning into 2014, I again wish Canberra and all its people, and all Australians, a happy 100th birthday. It has been a fantastic year. I would really love to thank everyone who has taken part in it. It has renewed pride here in Canberra in our great city and also, I hope, in the nation.
Macarthur Electorate: National Volunteer Awards
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (10:52): Last Friday, I was honoured to host the Macarthur 2013 National Volunteer Awards. The annual awards acknowledge volunteers from my electorate who are dedicated to supporting community groups and organisations in Macarthur. This year we had a record number of people nominated for the awards, which are in several different categories, including education, environment, long-term commitment, dedication to charity, sport and recreation, junior, youth, senior and Macarthur volunteer of the year. There were so many entries of outstanding calibre that the judges had a tough time choosing the winners.
I am proud today to announce the winners of the 2013 Macarthur Volunteer Awards: Macarthur Volunteer Of the Year Award, Brian Aitken; Junior Volunteer Award, Ani Hoxha; Youth Volunteer Award, Claire Golding; Senior Volunteer Award, 65 and over, Dawn Kershaw; Business Volunteer Award joint winners, Maria and Adam Sapienza from Macarthur Castles, and Kerry Shephard; Dedication to Charity Award, Steve Wisbey; sport and recreation, John McGrath; innovation in volunteering, Youth Solutions Youth Advisory Group; long-term commitment to volunteering, Beverley Gray; highly commended long-term commitment to volunteering, Phil Fitzpatrick; Education Volunteer Award, Robert Townson High School QuikShine team; highly commended education, Tim Time; emergency management volunteer, Jeff Wood; Environment Volunteer Award, Shane Djurdjevic; and highly commended environment volunteer, First Appin Scouts.
As I said, Brian Aitken has been named Macarthur Volunteer of the Year for 2013. Brian is a director of the Obesity Support Council, which he established in 2011. The council supports obese people living in Macarthur through education, intervention and a telephone counselling service and advice. Brian once weighed 225 kilograms and was confined to a wheelchair. He suffered from type 2 diabetes and sleep apnoea. Brian overcame his own health problems and now volunteers 75 hours per week to support others living with obesity. He also volunteers with the SES, RFS and the local Scouts.
I have said many times before in this place that volunteers are the heart and soul of my community. We have some fantastic charities and community organisations in Macarthur that simply could not run without the ongoing support and sacrifice of our volunteers. It was obvious that the volunteers who were recognised at the awards ceremony on Friday do not do it to receive thanks or praise; they do it because they want to give back to our community and help others, and that is what makes them so special. It is important that we as members of parliament take the opportunity to thank our volunteers for the wonderful work they do in our electorates.
I would like to thank all the people who nominated or volunteered for this year's awards. I would also like to thank my fellow judges, David Cadden from Macarthur Credit Union, Iliana Stillitano from the Camden NarellanAdvertiser, Amanda Partridge from the Macarthur Chronicle and Brooke Manzione from Youth Solutions. I commend all of the dedicated volunteers in my electorate. I know the people in Macarthur appreciate your generosity, dedication, compassion and reliability when helping others in the community. It is because of you that Macarthur is the best place to live in Australia, so as the member for Macarthur I humbly thank you for everything you do. I would also like to thank Michelle, Carla and Laura from my office for their efforts in organising a wonderful event, which everybody appreciated on the day. I commend the member for Solomon for her elevation to the Speaker's panel.
Eureka Stockade Anniversary
Ms KING (Ballarat—Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Regional Services and Local Communities and Territories) (10:55): Last Tuesday marked the 159th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade. On 3 December 1854, in the early morning, the 12th and 40th regiments, along with police troopers, attacked the gold-diggers' stockade. The battle was over in 20 minutes, leaving 22 diggers dead and five troopers killed. At its conclusion the Eureka flag was ripped and torn down. Yet the flag remains today, right now at the heart of the new Museum of Democracy at Eureka.
The Eureka Stockade marked a significant moment in Australia's history. It means many things to different people. It was the beginning of our journey towards democracy. It taught us about the struggle to achieve human rights; the right to a fair go and the right to dignity. More than that, it taught us about the national identity, that equality for all is the backbone of the society; that government should and must act in the interest of its own people. The struggle is epitomised by the words of the diggers who gathered under the flag:
We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties.
The Eureka Stockade has a unique place in our history books and in the story of our nation. It is testament to the significance of this event that each year thousands of visitors from across Australia and the world walk the Eureka Trail in the footsteps of the gold miners and the diggers.
Earlier this year I was honoured to open the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka, which sits on the site of the stockade. It now houses the Eureka flag and the original Ballarat Reform League Charter, the four-page manifesto from the diggers that calls for equal rights, equal representation and equal laws. I am proud that M.A.D.E. will serve as a place of education and of remembrance for that fateful day in 1854, but it is more than the story of Eureka—it is democracy and the debate about democracy that M.A.D.E. represents.
I would like to pay tribute to my colleague the member for Fraser, who gave a stirring lecture at M.A.D.E. last week for the 159th anniversary on the importance of the stockade. I thank him for his continued interest in and advocacy on the importance of the stockade in Australia's history and the significance of the Eureka flag to democracy. The struggle at Eureka against oppression and injustice is one that we in Ballarat are very proud of. It is our heritage. The stockade is our story. It is at the heart of who we are as a nation. Born out of gunpowder and smoke was our journey towards a democratic society.
I end with a quote from Mark Twain:
It was a strike for liberty, a struggle for a principle, a stand against injustice and oppression. … It is another instance of a victory won by a lost battle. It adds an honourable page to history; the people know it and are proud of it.
Long may we be proud of the Eureka Stockade and all it represents in the development of our democracy as a nation. I would welcome all members, if they get the opportunity, to visit the Museum of Democracy at Eureka, which has a great partnership with the Museum of Australian Democracy, in Canberra. It is a terrific place for children to learn about the Eureka Stockade and about our democracy.
Lindsay Electorate: Sports Funding
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (11:00): I would like to congratulate the member for Solomon on her fabulous achievement in being appointed to the Speaker's panel.
I rise to provide the people of Lindsay with an update regarding the funding commitments made during the 2013 federal election. Western Sydney is the home of sport, and in my opinion the Nepean Valley is its capital. We are home to the mighty Penrith Panthers, the Sydney Olympic White Water Stadium, the Sydney International Regatta Centre and the Western Sydney Wanderers, who have dominated the A-league by transforming the round-ball game in our region. We are famous for having the biggest junior rugby league base in the Southern Hemisphere. It is our third biggest sport; netball and soccer outrank it.
Grassroots sport is essential for our children and a bedrock of the Lindsay community. I am proud that the Abbott coalition government will provide $266,500 across six sporting precincts in my local area. To the Hunter fields in Emu Plains, we will provide $20,000 through the Emu Plains Football Club to upgrade their lighting so the kids can train at night. To the Nepean district netball association and the Penrith RSL Soccer Club, we will provide $90,000 for Jamison Park for shade cloth and a canteen upgrade, essential for those Saturday mornings when we are all out there playing netball. We will provide $25,500 to the Nepean football association for the Andromeda oval in Cranebrook to upgrade the drainage, so that on those rainy days they will be able to play sport on that oval. We will provide $26,000 to Penrith Baseball Club for a security fence for the Andrews Road baseball complex. Finally, we will provide $45,000 to the Penrith rugby league for a playing surface upgrade at Hickeys Park.
I look forward to working with Penrith City Council and so many of my local sporting groups in continuing to build the great sporting prowess that men and women in my area are known for and to ensure that the Nepean Valley will forever be a force to be reckoned with.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. A quorum not being present, the sitting will be suspended until a quorum is present.
Sitting suspended from 11:0 2 to 11:06
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Bushfires
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:06): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes with alarm the burden placed on the bushfire affected residents of the Blue Mountains and Central Coast via the combined mismanagement of recovery processes by the Australian and New South Wales governments;
(2) acknowledges that while emergency personnel and volunteers acted swiftly and bravely to minimise the impact of the horrific October fires, the Australian and New South Wales governments have made decisions that have hurt families and businesses in the aftermath of the fires, namely:
(a) failing to extend full disaster relief support payments;
(b) presiding over a poorly executed response to the clean-up process; and
(c) breaking a promise by failing to provide consequential concessional loans to small businesses struggling to recover after the fires; and
(3) calls on both the Australian and New South Wales governments to urgently act to remedy this situation and assist homes and businesses to fully recover in a quicker timeframe.
I rise on an issue of prime importance to the people of the Blue Mountains in the wake of the devastating bushfires in October. It is now 53 days since these bushfires occurred. It remains evident that those affected by the bushfires, many of whom were left homeless, have been abandoned by the federal government. The clean-up effort has been tardy and the government has walked away from its commitment to meet consequential damage concessional loans to small businesses in the Blue Mountains—in particular, to tourism businesses in this internationally famous place of beauty, which have been crippled. Some business operators are reporting that revenue is down 80 per cent. Householders, left sifting through the ruins of their much loved properties, have had the body blow of being told they need to sign waivers accepting liability for the clean-up of their sites.
What is particularly disturbing about the entire saga is that it appears that little has been learnt from the devastating Victorian and Tasmanian bushfires when it comes to the disaster recovery effort. In Victoria, for example, some 2,000 homes were caught up in the raging fires, 10 times the number that were devastatingly lost in the Blue Mountains in October. In Victoria, a contract was enforced to have the debris cleaned up in 21 days, and that was with more homes affected. In Tasmania, where around the same number of properties were claimed by the bushfires as those in the Blue Mountains, the equivalent contract demanded the clean-up be completed within eight days.
I repeat: the Blue Mountains fires raged 53 days ago and the clean-up effort is at a bureaucratic crawl—and the Liberal Party has led this crawl. Governments demand plenty of their citizens, who pay their taxes, pay their levies and pay their school fees. So, when disaster strikes, it behoves government to support their own in a time of need—not to make promises and then walk away from responsibility. But, I hasten to add, this has happened in the Blue Mountains in the wake of these fires. The buck-passing has been there for everyone to see. It has been the governmental order of the day that devastated families and businesses have been the collateral damage. There have been few sadder and more heart-wrenching sights than watching families in the Blue Mountains return to what is left of everything they had—their homes—to sift through the rubble to find whatever they can take away to remind them of what they had; in some cases, it is the smallest trinket. What they did not need after that was to be left wondering what was going to happen next in their lives. They were left in a no-man's land between levels of government that could not or would not show leadership in this time of crisis.
For the federal government to impose new and restrictive criteria on government disaster recovery payments, as per the regime upheld by the Labor government previously, is mean spirited to say the least.
Mrs Markus interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Member for Macquarie, you may have private views on the changes to these processes but I have not heard you stand up and criticise your government on the way it has treated people in the past. I do not say these words lightly. As the record shows, when my party has been in government I have stood up to demand better for the people I am proud to represent. If you have any issue with the way that disaster recovery is being delivered, then you have a prime opportunity to speak up for the people of Macquarie in this chamber and demand that it is improved. It should be better. I read through the statistics and it has taken 53 days for the recovery process to get underway—and that is after what we have seen in Tasmania and Victoria. I have previously given credit to the federal government when they have lent people a hand. For instance, I was very quick to support the Filipino-Australian community—whom I now represent and you previously represented—after Typhoon Haiyan. Australia has been a fantastically generous international citizen. We do spend hundreds of millions on international aid where it is needed, but people also want to see the same speedy response that the Abbott government has given to Haiyan extended to the Blue Mountains. This is a classic case where the government has gone to great lengths to be seen doing the right thing internationally, but it needs to do more on our local patch.
I have previously mentioned the onerous restrictions on the clean-up effort, whereby the New South Wales Liberal government threw the ball to insurance companies, saying, 'You run with it'. That meant the recovery effort stalled, leaving affected home and business owners nowhere to turn. The responsibility, or at least the liability, for the clean-up was forced on property owners who were required to sign a legally-binding waiver. It is just more buck-passing by the coalition government. Only in recent days has this, fortunately, changed with the government agreeing to cover the costs of removing concrete slabs, for instance, where homeowners have decided to rebuild on a different footprint. In Tasmania and Victoria they seem to have got their recovery right, with a single contractor charged with organising and handling the clean-up and recovery effort. In New South Wales it looks as if it has taken longer for those lessons to sink in. This motion, in part, calls on the New South Wales government to engage in a single contract to fund the total clean-up and later to engage individual insurers to recoup funds that have been outlaid. It should have been done from the start. A lot of heartache could have been avoided; a whole lot of angst and bad blood could have been sidestepped.
The second area of concern is the treatment of small business operators in the Blue Mountains. Some operators, of which there are thousands, have reported downturns of up to 80 per cent. At the height of the fires people from outside the Blue Mountains were rightly told to stay away and there was a mass exodus of residents fleeing the fire grounds. The few roads that remained open were clogged with fire trucks and other emergency services vehicles frantically trying to limit the impact of these blazes. The financial pain for business operators has lingered: there will not be the annual throng of visitors to the tourist spots over the holiday season and so the businesses are not recovering. To add salt to the wounds of those affected, a muddled assistance regime from the federal government has effectively benefited businesses that lost trade on the fringes of the worst areas but nothing has been offered to those business operators whose properties were consumed by the fires. So, I ask the federal government: why? Where are the small business consequential damage concessional grants to these poor folk? Why have they been left with nowhere to turn? Their only instructions have been to deal with an insurer. This is not what good governments do. It is particularly ironic given that the Liberal Party prides itself on looking after business. As I have said many times in this place in recent weeks, it said one thing before the election and another thing after it—not just on school funding, but also on the Blue Mountains disaster and small business assistance packages. My colleague Senator Doug Cameron has put a great deal of effort fighting for the people of the Blue Mountains after these fires, and he estimates the federal government has perhaps ripped $4 million from small business assistance in the form of promised grants. Senator Cameron has put the microscope on the recovery effort in an area where, he knows too well, the state and federal governments have been found wanting. The finger of blame can be pointed even further down the line. I have heard of cases where residents were desperate to clear properties as the fire approached and took vegetation to the local waste management site only to be told they were required to pay more than $100 to offload a trailer of green vegetation. It is simply not right.
My electorate of Chifley sits close by. We could read about and see the fires, but we could also smell them and see the ash falling around us in Western Sydney. I take this opportunity to praise the brave efforts of the many emergency services workers and the RFS brigades in our area. The firefighters on the ground put themselves in great danger to limit the impact of these fires. There are three brigades in my area—Shanes Park, Eastern Creek and Plumpton. I understand that Plumpton put in 2,700 man-hours of work to help with the management of these blazes. Police managed traffic to avoid what could have been absolute chaos when ambulance officers were treating the injured and the smoke affected or those who were just plain exhausted. It is a testament to the skill of the emergency services workers that lives were not lost on a grand scale in October.
The harshness and ruggedness of Australia are features we are internationally famous for; they can also be our greatest enemy. No matter how many precautions are put in place, we do experience these terrible incidents where nature works violently against us. It pains me to see the efforts of volunteers who take time off work being undermined because of bureaucratic shifting from one level of government to another. I fully agree with the seven points in the motion. Recovery efforts have to be coordinated and improved, and they have to happen sooner rather than later. The dollar figure has to be sorted out properly and the penny-pinching by state and federal governments has to end now. The federal election has come and gone, but the suffering of the people still lingers. They should not be forced to endure any more.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Hall: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (11:17): I rise to speak on the private member's motion moved by the member for Chifley. Firstly, to the member for Shortland, on behalf of my constituents, can I extend our deepest regret for what you and your community have experienced. Having walked the journey with my community over recent months, I want to extend to you our thoughts. I particularly extend condolences to the family and friends of Walter Linder. In the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury we experienced significant devastation and loss, but, fortunately, there has been no loss of life, which is miraculous.
It is of deep sadness to me that the member for Chifley would seek to criticise and politicise at a time when the people of my community are trying to rebuild after what has been a devastating and traumatic two months. It has been my observation that those opposite are seeking to play politics with the emotions, minds and hearts of people rather than reaching out and providing help where it is needed. During the recent bushfires, the Leader of the Opposition was quoted during a press conference as saying, 'Matters such as these emergencies are above politics.' I am disappointed that the behaviour of Senator Doug Cameron and others opposite has proved this statement false. I do not have time now to list every time I have seen the senator behave in a very inappropriate fashion, particularly to my community, who are suffering at this time.
The impacts of the bushfires in my electorate of Macquarie have been significant. Two hundred and eight homes have been lost, with another 191 damaged. All three major fires—the Linksview Road fire, the Mount York Road fire and the State Mine fire—have resulted in significant damage and loss throughout the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, and the impacts will be felt for some time to come. The fires hit hardest on 17 October. At the time, I was with my own local fire brigade getting ready to hop on a truck to head up to Bilpin when the seriousness of what was happening at Springwood began to unfold. I had to meander my way around closed roads and so on to reach the affected people at the Springwood evacuation centre, where I spent most of that evening with families, emergency services and NGOs.
Early Friday was a very emotional time. Escorted by police, I stood with members of the community in front of their destroyed and damaged homes, and many of these people are facing their own challenges already. In fact, there was one young mum whose daughter was in the hospital for that week for serious surgery, and while that was happening and her focus needed to be there she was losing her home.
Since that terrible day, I have been witness to the significant loss and hardship for the people of my community and have done my best to respond with whatever assistance is needed on the ground. What this motion fails to recognise is the incredible response on the ground by both the federal and state governments within the first hours and days following the disaster, not to mention the response by the community. I wish to enlighten the member opposite, as I failed to see him during this time. In the first 24 hours following 17 October, I was joined by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Human Services on the ground in Springwood and Winmalee. In fact, the Minister for Human Services spent close to a week there, making sure that all the services that were required on the ground were there. The Minister for Human Services was quick to assess what was needed for families and acted appropriately. A mobile Centrelink was set up at Summerhayes Park in Winmalee. We had to ask them to move it as the fires came quite perilously close; it was an emergency that went on for more than 10 days. Centrelink officers were stationed at all evacuation centres as well as at every local Centrelink office. They were open all weekend.
On 18 October the state government announced the appointment of Phil Koperberg to lead the recovery efforts and the team. On 21 October, the Blue Mountains Bushfire Recovery Committee was established to begin work. Both the local member and I were part of this. On 22 October the recovery centre opened in Springwood. The centre has been a one-stop shop for Blue Mountains recovery, for all agencies and for people to access on a daily basis. Included in that recovery centre from the first day it opened were representatives from Centrelink, the tax office, other government departments, the Salvation Army and other NGOs providing vital services to people that were experiencing a very tough time and still do today.
I would like to address the false and misleading claims made by the member for Chifley and to point out the following information regarding disaster relief payments which have been activated: within 24 hours the federal government activated the Australian government disaster recovery payment so that those who had been most severely affected could get assistance right away. The disaster recovery payment allows families who have been severely affected by the fires, those who have a lost or damaged house, have been severely injured or have lost a loved one—fortunately we lost no-one—to access payments of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child. For the first time ever we activated the disaster recovery allowance, which provides 13 weeks of income support to those who have lost income as a result of the bushfires. Labor failed to do this. The disaster recovery payment is designed to be flexible assistance.
Labor's claim that the payments were removed is false and, in fact, seems to be criticising their own approach given that when in government Labor have also adopted this approach by activating different criteria for different disasters. In fact, Labor used the same eligibility criteria that we have put in place on five occasions while they were in government: in January 2008 for storms and flooding in Mackay; in February 2008 for flooding in Mackay; in November 2008 for storms in Queensland; in May 2009 for storms and flooding in south-east Queensland and New South Wales; and in March 2010 for storms in Victoria. Labor have incorrectly stated that we did not activate the payment for those whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the fires. Along with this, I have been approached by a member of the public who witnessed Senator Cameron at the recovery centre approach a distraught resident and hassle them about the disaster recovery payments—very inappropriate. This behaviour should be absolutely condemned.
Let me bring some very important figures to the attention of those opposite. I have the latest figures, as of 5 December, from the Department of Human Services. For the AGDRP, the number of claims finalised is 764, at $833,600. For the disaster recovery allowance, 44 claims have been finalised, with the payments reaching $21,977. The cumulative number of calls to the Australian Government Emergency Information Line is more than 1,000. These figures do not include the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, nor do they include the raft of other measures: fast-tracking of tax refunds by the Australian Taxation Office; waived passport fees and streamlined processing of replacement passports; free mail redirection from Australia Post; and access to essential PBS medicines under the arrangement between the Department of Health and local pharmacists.
Following the impact of the initial emergency, the area of the Blue Mountains is now well into the recovery-and-clean-up phase. This is a very important phase. On 14 November 2013, the Minister for Justice made a joint announcement with the NSW government that we would be sharing the cost of cleaning up and removing debris from the bushfire affected properties in the Blue Mountains. This additional financial support came after an initial $1.4 million commitment by the state government, which funded urgent work to make safe sites containing asbestos in the bushfire zone. I also acknowledge that the Army was present on the ground, emptying unfenced pools, removing unsafe trees and also making sites safe in the weeks that followed. By taking these methodical steps in partnership with insurers, the state government is ensuring that 100 per cent of a homeowner's insurance payout is directed towards rebuilding, not spent on the clean-up.
Since the announcement on 14 November, the government has worked to move efficiently throughout this process, and it is estimated that between 40,000 and 60,000 tonnes of debris will be removed from the Blue Mountains. Based on similar tragedies in other jurisdictions, the clean-up operation could take months. It took five months to clear properties following the Tasmanian fires in 2012.
Let me also talk briefly about the business assistance that is available. We are absolutely 100 per cent committed to delivering on the $100,000 concessional interest rate loans. There is also additional assistance for businesses that are affected. Already, small businesses whose assets have been directly damaged by New South Wales fires may be eligible for concessional interest rate loans of up to $130,000. There is also additional assistance available from various sources. We also provided a holiday from PAYG.
We are progressing the $100,000 concessional loan as quickly as possible. Labor for six years failed to implement this. They never came up with that idea, nor did they attempt to deliver it. We are getting on with the job. We are committed to supporting our local communities throughout this whole process. There is no quick fix for recovering from a natural disaster of this magnitude. (Time expired)
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:27): On Thursday, 17 October, fires devastated the Central Coast and the southern part of Shortland electorate, just as they did the Blue Mountains, and I pass on my condolences and support to the people of the Blue Mountains area. In Shortland electorate, it had enormous impact on the people who lived there, on their homes and on their lives. Thousands of people had to be evacuated from their homes. During the evacuation they were forced to move to evacuation centres either at Doyalson or at Swansea, and these areas were also without electricity for a long period of time. As the member previously mentioned, there was loss of life as well as loss of property. Nowhere near the number of houses was lost in the Shortland electorate as was lost in the Blue Mountains, but the suffering of people in that area was quite significant.
When the electricity was disconnected and people were forced to leave their homes, it caused a loss of food. One of my constituents, Bianca Uicich, lives in Catherine Hill Bay, where water has to be brought into the area because there is no town water, so her water was used to fight the fires. After she was allowed back home, she had to throw out everything that she had in her freezer and at the same time had to pay to get new water to drink and use in the house. On investigation—and this is very significant because Bianca is a student; she is studying education at the University of Newcastle—I was absolutely astounded to find out that she could not access the AGDR payment because, unlike on previous occasions, that was only going to be paid to somebody who lost their home or lost their life.
There were some people at Catherine Hill Bay who lost their homes, and they accessed it. People like Ken Marples, who lost absolutely everything, received the $1,000 payment, but, unfortunately, I had to link him into charities in the area, because that $1,000 does very little to help sustain him.
I am astounded that this payment is not being made to families. There were a number of people who have contacted my office about this. People have been absolutely devastated by the fires. I think this it is not a time for blaming. I was a bit disappointed with the member across the chamber's contribution. I think it is a time that we should all join together and fight to get these things for our constituents. We really need to do that.
A government member interjecting—
Ms HALL: What the member for Chifley is trying to do is actually pull the government onside so that people who have lost thousands and thousands of dollars, who may not have any coverage from insurance companies, can get a payment with some dignity; people who slept on the floor of recreation centres, people who then had to turn around, go home and clean up their houses; people who may not have had their house burn down but still suffered significant losses. I think that the role of government is to support them.
The government's response initially in the Shortland electorate was good. But they have definitely failed the people of Shortland when it comes to emergency payments to help them cover the financial losses that they had at the time, to help them get on with their lives and to take up where they left off. It is not good enough that we get weasel words from the minister about why it cannot happen. What we should all be doing here in this parliament is saying that we want the best for our constituents. (Time expired)
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (11:32): I rise to speak on private members' business relating to the government's response to the Blue Mountains and Central Coast bushfires. It is a shame, and I will say that I am shocked that the member for Chifley neglected to point out in his motion that the bushfires also very much affected the Lithgow region, a very important part of Calare.
I am also shocked that somebody like the member for Chifley, who would not know what a bushfire was if it bit him on the backside, would get up and say this. I realise he is young and ambitious and wants to make a name for himself, but this is not the way to do it. I am pretty disgusted, to be honest.
I concede that what happened in my part of the world was nowhere near as bad as what happened in the electorate of Macquarie or the Blue Mountains, which was horrific. It was an amazing thing that there was no loss of life. But there were enormous losses to people. In my part of the world we lost half a dozen homes or so, but it was nothing like what happened further up in the mountains. Even so, we did lose about 30,000 square kilometres, burnt out, but the member for Chifley would not really be aware of those sorts of things.
I spoke about the local response in parliament only a few weeks ago. I have to say again that it is a shame that the opposition are trying to make political points when this fire was as well-run as any I have seen. In my part of the world, I have to say that the response by the bushfire brigade, particularly the rural bushfire section, did an extremely good job. They worked with the council, the police and everybody. It was as good as anything I have seen. They could focus on joining with us, both federal and state governments, to help those communities rebuild, repair and regenerate.
As my colleague the member for Macquarie has already mentioned we are committed to working with the state—in fact, we are contributing half of the cost of recovery. That covers things including the demolition of damaged houses and removal of debris, as well as emergency food, clothing and accommodation for people impacted by the bushfires.
About the clean-up: I know that the Army obviously has a part to play in this. At the minute the railway contacted me about their problems I put the Army in contact with them, and they made themselves available to them to help to the nth degree.
During the height of the fire threat for the Lithgow region I visited the various centres in town and I can, as I have already said, attest to the support that was being provided by everybody. The 23 RAAF Base Glenbrook volunteers assisted with the clean-up at the Zig Zag Railway at Lithgow. They sorted bushfire-damaged scrap and salvageable items. Further assistance was available locally from the RAAF Base at Glenbrook, and non-emergency Defence assistance to the civil community could also be provided.
In general, the Australian government has activated the disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance—obviously with the payment being the immediate payment and the allowance continuing on for weeks for those who have lost income as a result of the bushfires. Sadly, I know one person who is very aware of what bushfires can do, and it is a bit rich for the opposition to criticise when it was actually the Howard government who designed the disaster recovery payment to be a flexible assistance measure. When in government, Labor also adopted this approach by activating different criteria for different disasters. Small businesses whose assets have been directly damaged by the bushfires may also be eligible for concessional interest rate loans of up to $130,000, jointly provided by New South Wales and the Commonwealth.
Our government will do what it should do for people who are affected by fire which, by its suddenness and what it does, is worse than flood and drought. I come from a part of the world which was probably the most bushfire affected in New South Wales back in the seventies, eighties and nineties. It does not seem to have had so many lately—maybe the seasons have not been quite as good.
I stand by what the government has done and will do so in the future. I am absolutely disgusted that somebody who is young and wants to make a name for himself wants to make a name for himself like this.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:37): The bushfires that affected the Blue Mountains, Lithgow and the Central Coast regions of New South Wales in October and November this year were truly devastating. At the outset I want to join with my Labor colleagues in acknowledging the tremendous work of our emergency service personnel and the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, including the thousands of volunteers that helped limit the devastation that was wrought across the state.
While my electorate of Newcastle was spared extensive damage, blazes in Salt Ash and those that came perilously close to our airport and the RAAF base at Williamtown were worrying, and certainly affected a number of residents and businesses. My neighbouring electorate of Shortland experienced major fires in the Gateshead and Catherine Hill Bay areas, and my colleague Jill Hall has worked tirelessly to support her constituents at this time of need.
Hundreds of properties were under threat from the various blazes for a number of weeks. However, thanks to the preparation and mitigation work before the blazes hit, and the tremendous response efforts of various bodies, few properties were in fact lost. The community of Catherine Hill Bay, just south of Newcastle, was not totally spared, and did lose a number of historic properties and businesses, notably Woollahra House, an 1887-built homestead that was on the market to be sold for the first time, was destroyed. And a service station on the link road between the Central Coast and Newcastle—more famous, perhaps, for its giant prawn that its petrol—was also destroyed.
Aside from the recognition already given to the Rural Fire Service, I would also like to make special note of one of the forgotten heroes of disaster management, the RSPCA. They played an important role in the evacuation and care of domestic animals and wildlife, creating specialised services at evacuation centres reuniting pets and owners that had been separated because of the fires.
Make no mistake, however, the fire mitigation and response activities helped to limit the loss of property and life. The weather forecasting and other early warning systems developed by CSIRO helped residents prepare their properties and evacuate dangerous areas well before fires hit. CSIRO's forecasting is now so precise that I have no doubt their skills and expertise have saved many properties and lives.
As already acknowledged, the disaster response efforts of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and other emergency bodies also saved property and lives. On the other hand, the recovery effort in New South Wales has been haphazard and continues to cause trauma to the lives of hundreds of residents and local businesses.
It is with dismay that I stand here today to speak on this motion. It has been more than 50 days since the bushfires raged through New South Wales and, to a large extent, the clean-up effort has only just commenced. Squabbling between state and federal governments has prolonged the trauma for residents and businesses, and it has to stop. Action is required. I note that efforts have been made over the past few days to commence the demolition, clearing and rubble removal that is required to start the rebuilding process, but it has taken far too long and the process has been flawed.
Residents traumatised by the loss of their homes and possessions had to take to the media in order to get things moving and to have their cases dealt with properly. The mental and physical trauma experienced by those affected residents and businesses cannot be quantified. However, the economic costs can be.
Blue Mountains, Lithgow and Oberon Tourism have estimated the region is down $47 million in revenue already. Their estimates show day trips alone have dropped by more than 144,000, resulting in flow-on losses of about $13 million for local businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of these communities but their recovery is being held back. Just last week the Minister for Small Business wrote to my Labor colleague Senator Doug Cameron confirming the circumstances in which disaster recovery payments are made available. I quote: 'People who have significant hardship, including the loss of a loved one and serious injury, or those whose homes have been significantly damaged or destroyed, are to be the priority areas.'
Minister, I can assure you that the small businesses of the Blue Mountains and the Central Coast are going through significant hardship and could benefit from the full range of disaster relief payments including, as promised, the consequential concessional loans to small businesses struggling to recover after the fires.
As a nation, we are getting much better at prevention and mitigation. But we need to remedy this situation to assist everyone to fully recover as soon as possible. That is the intent of this motion. (Time expired)
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (11:42): I rise in opposition to the member for Chifley's private member's motion relating to the government response in supporting those residents in New South Wales who were adversely affected by the recent bushfires. I would like to start by commending the work of the rural bushfire brigade and the emergency services that went above and beyond the call of duty to help so many people across the region. My electorate of Lindsay neighbours that of Macquarie. It was within my own electorate that I witnessed firsthand the commitment and the work of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Justice, coordinated by the state member for Macquarie, where they provided help, support and assistance to the people of the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains. Their on-the-ground work, alongside each other, ensured the Australian government's response to this disaster was swift and that those who needed our support got it without delay. I would also like to commend my local community groups in the Lindsay region, including the Penrith Panthers, which housed 1,500 firefighters throughout the entire ordeal.
I would like to remind those opposite that, with regard to disaster recovery payment eligibility criteria, the Howard government designed the disaster recovery payment to be a flexible assistance measure. When in government, Labor also adopted this approach by activating different criteria for different disasters. In fact, Labor used the same eligibility criteria that have been put in place on five occasions whilst they were in government. Labor incorrectly said that the coalition did not activate the payment for those whose homes were damaged or destroyed. This and other comments made by Labor on the issue have been misleading and should be condemned. Over the weekend following the initial fire emergency on Thursday, 17 October 2013, the Department of Human Services opened its service centres in Springwood, Katoomba, Raymond Terrace, Charlestown and Wyong. The department's mobile service centre was also operating throughout the Springwood area, including Winmalee—the epicentre of the devastation—less than 48 hours after the initial firestorm. Forty-six departmental staff directly assisted the emergency response on the ground and in the weeks following the initial fire emergency. In addition, 209 staff assisted with other services provided by the department, including, but not limited to, taking calls and providing technical support. The department has had a strong presence at the state recovery centre in Springwood and was on hand at the evacuation centres in Springwood and Lithgow in the immediate aftermath of the fires.
The Linksview fire destroyed 193 homes in Springwood, Winmalee and Yellow Rock. The Australian government activated disaster assistance measures on Friday, 18 October 2013—less than 24 hours after the greatest impact of the fire. The department is delivering three assistance schemes to those who were affected by the fire: the Australian government disaster recovery payment, the disaster recovery allowance and ex gratia payments equivalent to the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance for certain New Zealand passport holders. The department's top priority during this disaster has been to deliver payments as quickly and as compassionately as possible to people in need. As at midnight, 5 December 2013, 764 claims for the Australian disaster recovery payment have been granted, with more than $850,000 paid into people's bank accounts. There have been 1,174 calls related to the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance, which have been answered by the department. As at midnight, 5 December 2013, 44 claims for the disaster recovery allowance have been granted, with money paid into people's bank accounts on a fortnightly basis for up to 13 weeks. People have until April 2014 to lodge a claim.
The Australian government emergency information line operates weekdays from 8 am to 5 pm. For the first 11 days of the emergency response, the hotline was available from 8 am to 8 pm seven days a week. The department's processing teams are taking a compassionate approach to assessing claims, but, ultimately, people still need to meet the eligibility criteria determined by the Minister for Justice. Departmental social workers have been deployed in the affected areas to provide support to their customers, many of whom have suffered great loss in this disaster. I commend the Prime Minister, the Minister of Human Services, the Minister for Justice and the member for Macquarie for their compassionate work to those affected.
Debate adjourned.
Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House notes:
(1) with concern that Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita in Australia, the nation's highest unemployment rate, the lowest proportion of adults in the nation who have attained a year 12 qualification, one of the lowest retention rates to year 12, the lowest population growth, and the highest proportion of Australians without superannuation coverage;
(2) that Tasmania has enormous potential with productive land, a skilled and willing work force and people with a strong commitment to improve the state's economy by endeavour and hard work; and
(3) that the Federal Coalition's Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania, promised in the election campaign and reiterated in Her Excellency the Governor-General's speech opening the 44th Parliament, will provide the architecture to help tum Tasmania's economy around and encourage long term, sustainable employment.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (11:48): I would like to thank my colleague the member for Bass for putting this important motion before the parliament. Like the member for Bass, I too have mixed feelings about this motion, because, as I reflected in my maiden speech just one week ago, we are a state of makers. We are producers and we do it well: cheese, wine, machinery, vegetables and beef—on these fronts we are second to none. Yet, despite our reputation for excellence and innovation, Tasmania is found wanting on just about every significant economic and social indicator available. As this motion notes, Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita of any state—approximately 20 per cent lower than the national average. We have the highest unemployment rate at well over eight per cent, the lowest year 11 and 12 school completion rates, with less than 50 per cent of students in my electorate of Braddon completing school, and the highest number of people who will enter their retirement with little or no money in the bank to help them live out their lives in relative comfort.
The dire economic situation in which Tasmania finds itself is not an aberration of accepted economic theory—it is not the doing of the Tasmanian people themselves, nor is it the result of some unfortunate natural disaster. No, the reality is that Tasmania is languishing at the bottom of the economic and social ladder of this country as a direct result of a disastrous era of Green politics, intervention politics and, in the last four years, a coalition of Labor and the Greens, with two Greens in the cabinet. This has had dire consequences for the confidence afforded to the Tasmanian economy.
It is no coincidence that when Labor linked arms with the Greens on the Treasury benches of both parliaments, the relatively strong economic position of the state began to falter and over the last four years 10,000 people have lost their full-time jobs in Tasmania. Tasmania has the highest unemployment rate of any state, which is somewhat hidden by the ever-growing number of fly-in fly-out workers. I meet more than enough of them on aeroplanes each time I board. There is also a hidden problem of the high underemployment rate, where approximately 14 per cent of participating women and 18 per cent of men struggle to get the number of hours of work in a week to balance the family budget. Where they may have had 26, 28 or 30 hours a week, they are now getting 16, 18 or maybe 20. That is a huge impost on our families. Sadly, we have the relocation of whole families to the mainland in search of employment—and you cannot question their motives.
We have the lowest proportion of private sector employment compared to public sector employment—and that is a real concern of mine. We have the highest dependency ratio percentage of any state or territory. We have the lowest gross state product per capita, 20 per cent below the national average. Private business investment is only 1.3 per cent of Australia's total and well below the national average over the last decade. We have the lowest proportion of adults in Australia who have attained a year 12 qualification and the lowest retention rates to year 12.
We have the highest proportion of population with a low-income card, those receiving an age pension, a disability support pension, Newstart allowance, single-parenting payment, parenting payment partnered or youth allowance. Sadly, we have the highest standardised death rate due to suicide of any state, which breaks my heart. We have the highest proportion of dwellings provided for housing owned by either state or federal governments. We have the second longest—although I think it may now be the longest—elective surgery waiting list in the country and the highest proportion of people without superannuation coverage.
Where does that take us? I recall in the lead-up to the federal election that I and my colleagues with me in the chamber, the member for the Lyons, Mr Hutchinson, and the member for Bass, Mr Nikolic, had several momentous discussions with the alternative Prime Minister. Whilst it would have been easy for us to say, 'Mr Prime Minister, all we need are mountains of cash to hand out in our electorates to win our seats,' that was far from our minds. We have all been around long enough to understand that has been done to death and, despite record levels of funding, educational and health outcomes are still the worst in the nation. This goes to show that it is not always about money, but it is about better policy.
These discussions led us and our Senate colleagues to discuss the need for an economic growth plan for Tasmania. This plan would undertake to highlight some structural deficiencies in the Tasmanian economy. We also highlighted the need for infrastructure. I believe through that process we have ended up with a document which, whilst some may not see it as exciting as a $25 million cheque coming their way, if the Tasmanian people can grasp the reality of the needs confronting us and can be patient enough to see the structural change, we will see a definite improvement.
The Institute of Public Affairs only a year or so ago calculated the proportion of Green bureaucrats employed by state governments across the country. It was very interesting and I will cut to the chase: in Victoria one Green bureaucrat is employed for every 1,746 residents. Have a guess at how many in Tasmania? It is one for every 387 residents. I am sure Mr Wilkie, the Independent member for Denison, will be just as interested in that, given his media alert this morning, which I thank him for, highlighting this debate—and I might take up one issue in that alert. But I am sure even Mr Wilkie would understand that that is an unacceptable situation in a population of 500,000 people. It is noted that we have doubled the number of green bureaucrats since 2007.
Investment in much-needed infrastructure has been forgone in my state in favour of public sector growth with no multiplier or wealth-generating benefits. If you want to see benefits, you give confidence to those who can invest their own money. You get behind them and you put in the structural changes that are required. You put in the policy agendas that are required. You do not just go and increase bureaucratic numbers.
In the face of the ever-increasing Tasmanian bureaucracy, the coalition has not initiated in its growth plan a one-stop shop for environmental approvals—I might have a little bit more to say in the debate on the environmental amendment this afternoon in the chamber. But that has been widely welcomed by businesses.
Small businesses are the real job creators and often are more resilient to economic downturns and have a stronger commitment to maintaining their employment base during difficult times. However, small businesses, to get started and to prosper, need to be released from their tax burdens such as the carbon tax, the provision of modest company tax relief and the cutting of red and green tape.
It does bring me to the media alert of the Independent member for Denison which I said I welcomed. His concluding statement was: 'There must be a fairer deal for Tasmania's 32,000 small businesses, many of which are being crushed by high power and sewerage bills,'—granted, and I agree—'excessive rates, payroll and land taxes and the predatory behaviour of Woolworths and Coles'. I would humbly ask that the member acknowledge that we went to the election to get rid of a massive tax that the Productivity Commission has just proven has cost the economy $6 billion and basically made no difference to carbon emission reductions. So I was a little bewildered that there was no sign in the concluding comments of Mr Wilkie of his support for the repeal of the carbon tax, which I think would be welcome given that we have won a mandate for that—certainly in Tasmania—and it is certainly contributing to the high energy costs of Tasmania, and contributing to the ongoing costs to small business. So I would welcome his support on that.
There are a number of other issues, which time will not allow me to speak about: obviously freight, as I mentioned in my maiden speech, continues to be a recurring theme in any discussion about our future. I know that the member for Lyons, the member for Bass and I are absolutely committed to getting the best outcome on that. We believe that there are solutions to the vagaries of that system. We are also suffering from the loss of a solid international shipping container operator. I welcome the initiative of the state Liberals in the lead-up to the state campaign to put $11 million a year on the table to try and entice a private investor into that market.
As I said last week, we have such great potential but we are being held back, and it is our commitment to ensure we get the structural change that we need.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:58): Good morning to my parliamentary colleagues from Tasmania. I will address just one point very briefly before I turn my focus to the motion that we are discussing today: the issue of a price on carbon. I would ask the government to be mindful that the repeal of a price on carbon will mean that we will lose the $70 million windfall that Hydro Tasmania will enjoy this financial year and in successive years. So I do not want to get into a slanging match or argy-bargy about the price of carbon. What I would ask the government, though, is to be mindful of the cost to Tasmania of overturning the price on carbon. I think it would be an entirely appropriate in the circumstances if the government would consider somehow compensating Tasmania for the loss of that $70 million benefit that is being enjoyed by Hydro in this financial year.
Tasmania is obviously a place of enormous unrealised potential. It is a wonderful place. I chose to move there in fairly recent years, and I am very pleased with that decision. It is the jewel in this nation's crown in so many ways. But Tasmania will not release its potential until at least three things are done. First, there needs to be a collegiate, multilateral political approach to remedying the problems and the challenges that Tasmania has. I am pleased that the debate today has started in a very gentlemanly and collegiate way, and I would hope that that continues. When this debate started last week, I was disappointed to see that there was too much mud-slinging and political pointscoring. I think that is one of the reasons we in Tasmania find ourselves in the circumstances that we do. I am certainly more than prepared to work in a collegiate manner, in a non-partisan way, with the members of all of the political parties to try and find consensus, and to try and find ways to move the state forward. The future of my home state of Tasmania should be above party politics and political self-interest. We have a state election coming up in a few months' time, and there are political reasons for trying to score points at this point in time. But I would ask that we put them aside in the interests of the state.
Second, Tasmania will not achieve its potential until governments, both state and federal, put in place the enablers of economic development. It is no good—and politicians are guilty of this all the time—jumping to stage 2 of the plan; for example, that we will be a food bowl, or that we will increase the size of the university, or that we will increase niche manufacturing, like high-technology catamarans at Incat—but that is actually the second stage of a plan. The first stage is to put in place the enablers of economic development. There are a couple that come straight to my mind. For a start, we need a better quality of governance in Tasmania—
Mr Nikolic: Hear, hear!
Mr WILKIE: and the member for Bass, who has just walked in, would probably agree with me that we need a better quality of governance. That is not me trying to score points, or trying to attack any particular party or any particular government. But it has been the case in Tasmania that we have had a sub-standard level of governance, quite a lot, in recent decades. So I will look with great interest at the state election, and I hope we will see all of the political parties put up better-quality candidates. It is not true that we get the politicians we vote for; we actually get the politicians that political parties let us vote for. I will be looking with a keen eye, and I will be passing compliments when they are due and criticism when it is due—that is, according to whether the political parties put up good candidates or poor candidates. We need strong political leadership.
We also need to get the cost of moving freight across Bass Strait down. It is an absolute absurdity that three-quarters of the cost of getting a 20-foot container from Hobart to North America is getting it from Hobart to the Port of Melbourne, and that only one-quarter of the cost is getting it from Melbourne to North America. It is an absurdity that, to get a container of raw material inputs for our business in Tasmania, one-quarter of the cost of moving that container is getting that material from China to Melbourne, and three-quarters of the cost is getting it from Melbourne to Hobart or somewhere else in the state. I was very disappointed to see the Tasmanian state government not challenge the Victorian government on the $75 million annual port licence fee that it requires the Port of Melbourne authority to pay the Victorian government every year. I am advised that that port licence fee imposed by the Victorian government—which effectively applies to everything coming in and out of Tasmania, because it all goes through Victoria—is effectively unconstitutional. It is a tax on interstate trade. The Victorian government is acting quite improperly—and I think the Tasmanian government knows that, but it does not have the strength to take on the Victorian government in the courts. If we could get rid of the $75 million port licence fee imposed on the Port of Melbourne, that would bring down, or help to bring down, the cost of freight in and out of Tasmania.
There are then any number of specific policy reforms that could be implemented—and implemented quickly—to help Tasmania. I ask the two members of the government who are sitting in the Federation Chamber today: please go back to the government and ask the government to reconsider the decision to axe 56 federal public service IT jobs in Tasmania and send them to the mainland. I ask the government, in a collegiate way, to reconsider that. Fifty-six IT jobs in a workforce as small as Tasmania—that is a lot of jobs. That decision would seem to be entirely at odds with this government's stated intention to help Tasmania out. To strip out 56 federal public service jobs from the state—mostly out of Hobart, I suspect—is at odds with that stated policy position of the government. It could be reversed today. Today the minister could stand up and say she has directed the parliament not to go ahead with axing those positions.
Another thing the government could do today—we do not need an inquiry but could do this today—is say something about what has happened to Qantas. What is the relevance of Qantas to Tasmania? Among other things, there is a call centre in Glenorchy city employing more than 200 of my constituents. They are nervous; I have had a lot of correspondence from the workforce in Glenorchy saying they are worried about the future of Qantas and their jobs. If the federal government wants to do something today, the Prime Minister or Treasurer could put our minds at ease about the future of Qantas. I would favour the federal government taking a financial stake in the airline and giving Qantas the financial muscle to compete with its competitors, all of which enjoy largesse from their own governments, whether the Singapore or New Zealand government.
Finally, we need to do something about small business in Tasmania. We do not have a big mining industry or a big manufacturing industry, but we do have a big, vibrant and important small business sector. There are something like 32,000 small businesses in the state. On Saturday night I had a cup of tea with members of the Syrian community—there are about 300 Syrians in my electorate. Everyone there is a small-business operator; many have corner stores, takeaways and so on. They said they are being crushed by the cost of doing business in Tasmania. For example, a corner store doing groceries and some takeaway food pays up to $40,000 for electricity in a year. That is unaffordable. One businessman told me he pays $600 a year for someone to inspect his grease trap. They pay excessive rates, but do not get basic services such as garbage removal. They pay excessive payroll and land tax. There is also the predatory behaviour of Woolies and Coles. The federal government could do something about this predatory behaviour, but in the 43rd Parliament, when the member for Kennedy and I asked for that, we could not get any support. These corner stores are being driven out of business. When Woolies and Coles charge $1 for a litre of milk or a loaf of bread, the corner stores cannot compete.
There is so much we could do for Tasmania at the state and federal government levels. We need to work collegiately and do what we can—and we need to do it really quickly.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (12:08): I acknowledge some of the comments of the member for Denison, particularly in relation to the carbon tax. Whilst Tasmania has advantages in its large generation of hydroelectricity, the cost of electricity has still been going up in recent times. The cost of the carbon tax on the broader economy, particularly small businesses with refrigeration costs, is substantial. I believe that the government's Direct Action policy will be a great opportunity for Tasmania. We have opportunities with our forests to put in place abatement to the advantage of Tasmania in the longer term.
I turn now to the motion moved by my colleague the member for Bass last week and I note the economic growth plan for Tasmania. How has it come to pass that Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita in Australia, the nation's highest unemployment rate, the lowest proportion of adults in the nation who have attained a year 12 qualification and one of the nation's lowest retention rates to year 12? It has the lowest population growth and the highest proportion of Australians without superannuation coverage. There is also a growing sovereign risk to investment opportunities in Tasmania. Unfortunately, under state and federal Labor-Green governments it has become too hard to risk capital in Tasmania. This must change.
There is no better example of the state's dire social and economic circumstances than in my own electorate of Lyons, which is the biggest Tasmanian electorate, covering more than 50 per cent of the state. The majority of the electorate is rural and focused on agriculture; the state's once mighty forestry industry; and, to a certain extent, mining. Towns such as New Norfolk and Deloraine, but also very small communities like Triabunna on the east coast and Meander, have relied for generations on the wealth of the surrounding rural industries to maintain their economic viability. Tasmania does indeed have the highest unemployment rate in the country—now well over 8½ per cent in trend terms, compared to the latest national average of just over 5.6 per cent. In Lyons, the average unemployment rate has for several years been even higher than the state average. In 2013, Lyons had 3,652 of Tasmania's 17,600 unemployed people.
Building approvals in September 2013 were 5.7 per cent lower than the previous September, according to a Australian Bureau of Statistics survey released last month. It is an indictment on the lack of confidence in the Tasmanian economy as it stands. The spin-off effects of the deconstruction of the state's forestry industry, along with other challenges such as rising energy costs and the high value of the Australian dollar, have hit all businesses, including the big four employers—Norske Skog in my electorate, Nyrstar in Denison, Bell Bay Aluminium in Bass and Grange Resources.
The latest ABS Labour Force survey, released at the end of October, revealed that the number of unemployed men grew from 4,600 five years ago to 12,400 in 2013. The number of unemployed women grew from 5,900 to 8,900 in the same period. Unemployed people who work in mining, construction, accommodation and food service experienced the largest percentage growth over that period. It is nothing we should be proud of. We hear much about forestry jobs lost in recent times, and it is important to remember that when we describe the forestry industry it is never about those people felling trees in the forest or even driving cartage equipment; it is rather about the takeaway shop at the little town of Cressy in my electorate; the tyre business that supported the infrastructure around the industry; and the engineering shop that employed 10 or 15 people in a community like Launceston. The flow-on benefits of the forestry sector were enormous, and Tasmania is hurting as a result of its deconstruction by Labor and the Greens.
Despite the hard times that challenge Tasmania, there are those who are striving to be part of the state's inevitable economic recovery. In agriculture, we are seeing both local and foreign investment in the dairy sector. In fact, we have excess capacity on the north-west coast of nearly 75 per cent at the moment. The Big Picture project, which was launched recently, is another excellent example. Nyrstar, Grange Resources, Bell Bay Aluminium and Norske Skog already contribute over $1.5 billion to the state's economy every year. The Big Picture project aims to make Tasmanians aware of the enormous contribution that these companies make and of how they want to grow their investment. These major employers pay more than $300 million in salaries annually. The mining and manufacturing industries in Tasmania are worth $3.5 billion, and they are $1 billion ahead of the next largest industry. In the example of Bell Bay Aluminium, $200 million is spent with local suppliers every year.
Tourism is also a vitally important part of industry within the state of Tasmania, in particular, on the Tasman Peninsula. Recently, I welcomed some funding, under the government's T-QUAL program, for Matt Dunbabin, who has a business near the fire-ravaged town of Dunalley, which suffered so badly in the January bushfires. Those sorts of investments in regional tourism will encourage more visitor stays and more opportunities for those people who seek to visit the state's premier tourist attraction, Port Arthur, to spend an extra day on the Tasman Peninsula.
Last week, at the Australian Export Awards, Prime Minister Tony Abbott paid tribute to Australia's Regional Exporter of the Year, a small business located at Cressy in my electorate. It is a privately owned business, but it has tripled its employees in the past three years by expanding exports to the Middle East and Asia—a great example of the innovative, committed and hardworking people that epitomise the character of Tasmanians.
I refer back to the motion and the key points with regard to the economic growth plan that was launched during the election campaign. The coalition believes that the economic course of Tasmania can be reset to one of growth, jobs and rising living standards for all Tasmanians. And we will deliver.
Under the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments there were no new, additional jobs created in Tasmania. In fact, during that period almost one in 10 full-time jobs were lost. There is no avoiding the fact that Tasmania needs to be more competitive. It must have much greater incentives for the private sector to invest again, innovate and create jobs growth in Tasmania. Tasmania can be competitive, particularly in the resources, forestry, fisheries, tourism and agricultural sectors within the state. We have so many natural and competitive advantages that can provide greater, long-term benefits for Tasmania, including renewable energy.
Amongst the announcements that we made and that we are committed to delivering during the term of this government is a major projects approval agency, a one-stop shop for major projects. This will reduce some of the sovereign risk issues associated with investing in Tasmania. The sum of $3,250 will be provided to businesses which are willing to take on and keep on, in addition to existing assistance, unemployed people for an additional six months.
Most importantly, the Joint Commonwealth and Tasmanian Economic Council, including representation from the Prime Minister and Treasurer, will put Tasmania's economic issues at the forefront of the Commonwealth government policy agenda. We announced: $38 million for the upgrade of the Hobart International Airport; $400 million for the Midland Highway; $100 million for mobile phone black spots, which will be very welcome within the vast electorate of Lyons; $24 million for Antarctic research and to establish an Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research Centre in Hobart; $13 million for the Sense-T project; and also a vegetable industry task force in Tasmania. I commend the federal coalition's economic growth plan for Tasmania, which will provide the architecture to help turn around the state's economy.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (12:18): I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the good state of Tasmania and about the good things that are happening there. As we know, there are some difficult circumstances and difficult times facing Tasmania which have been long running. There have been situations and matters at hand that are not as a result of this current economic period but of many decades.
What is confusing, though, is that members from Tasmania come into this House and talk down their own state. I find that quite confusing. This motion is more about all the things that are wrong with Tasmania than the things that are right with Tasmania or the work that can be done to improve the lot of the great state of Tasmania. I look through this motion, moved by the member for Bass, at the bits referring to some negative things and also where Tasmania does not quite lift to the standard that we might all expect and then see that it quickly shifts to just looking for someone to blame, or quickly shifts to just saying, 'It's just somebody's fault.' I think it is actually a little bit more involved and a little bit more complex than that.
Reading this motion highlighted to me that this is the state of a confused government—a government that is still confused about its role in what it might be able to do for the state of Tasmania and in fact for this country; about whether it is still in opposition or whether it is in control of the reins and levers of the economy; and about what it should do. Instead of talking down an economy, it should be talking up an economy. Instead of highlighting the problems, which anybody can do—it is very easy to do; anybody can highlight problems—it should provide concrete solutions. Plans are many. When you have only been in government for five minutes, you have all the plans in the world. Let us just see how those plans work out. I wish them well on this, because I think the good people of Tasmania deserve to do well and to do better.
We heard other members talk in here about some of the long-run issues that have not been resolved. They were not resolved in the Howard government years and they were not necessarily resolved under us either. But I will say this: we stood up for the Tasmanian economy and the Tasmanian state, and we will continue to do that. The confused circumstances that the government find themselves in are reminiscent of the confused circumstances they found themselves in with what they said before an election and where they are after an election, particularly in our relationship with Indonesia. They are not sure which they are anymore, but there is always a price to be paid for the things that are said and done before an election and the things that must be done after an election.
So it is very easy for government members to come in here and write these long private members' business motions talking about how bad things are in Tasmania, but they take no responsibility. They will not take any responsibility if things do not necessarily improve all that much, and they talk about the jobs that have been lost in the past. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that things might have been worse if it were not for some of the good things that the Labor federal government did while it was in government.
I can tell you this: if you come into this place on a promise of building a million jobs, you have to start somewhere, and you do not start by sacking people, such as people directly in the IT sector down in Tasmania. You do not create jobs in Tasmania by sacking people in an industry where there is a potential for growth, you do not shift public servants from Tasmania back to the mainland if you want to create something positive for the Tasmanian economy, and you certainly do not walk away from the workers of Holden in South Australia if you are serious about building a million jobs. I recall something really specific that the opposition used to say to me all the time when we were in government.
Mr Nikolic: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, talking about Holden in South Australia is not relevant to the topic under consideration.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): There is no point of order.
Mr RIPOLL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are right: there is no point of order. Perhaps when the member has a bit more experience in this place he will understand that. But the reality is that, just as the government walked away from workers in South Australia, you are doing the same thing in Tasmania. You have walked away from public servants and you are shifting them from Tasmania straight back across to the mainland. That will not help in Tasmania. You are a government of three years, so start acting like a government. Start laying out the proper plans. Instead of saying you have the lowest qualifications and the lowest of this and the lowest of that, come in here and talk about the positive plans, because I do not see too many positive plans contained in this.
As I said, this is a government that is wracked by confusion. Government members will come in here with their confected anger and they will carry on about a range of things, but let me tell you something else that we did in government: we looked after low-paid workers, particularly women. There are two million women in Australia who are paid less than $37,000 a year, and they got a very important bonus through their superannuation, called the low-income superannuation contribution. Many of those are in Tasmania, and that is what is most upsetting about this: when you rip that away from these people, you rip it away from the Tasmanian economy. You rip it away from the people who need it the most.
When it comes to private sector jobs, let me tell you about a lot of the things that Labor did in government, particularly for small business. We injected more than $5 billion worth of direct assistance. I went and visited Tasmania and held some small business forums around some of these issues, and there were a lot of complaints and a lot of different issues, but I tell you what: we were there with money on the table, $5 billion worth of direct assistance, from which Tasmania benefited directly. But when the coalition comes to power what does it do? It rips that away. I want to see someone explain to me how $5 billion less in the small business world can directly help. There was the uncapped, unlimited $6,500 in direct assistance with the instant asset write-off.
I would like to see how that is explained to Tasmanian businesses when they go to write a cheque and are about to buy a piece of equipment and they realise that that piece of equipment is no longer covered and they will not get that direct assistance. Tasmanian small businesses will be directly worse off to the tune of real dollars, and they will make an economic decision. They will say, 'Well, we might just hang off on buying that piece of equipment or employing that extra person.'
But the Tasmanian state government, on the other hand, has actually taken direct action, unlike the direct action that has been taken by the coalition government now, which is to rip money out, rip out superannuation, rip a whole heap of things out of that economy, rip out the Public Service jobs, rip out public sector jobs—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order?
Mr Nikolic: Under standing order 66A, would the member tell us how many jobs were created under the former government's plan in Tasmania?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr RIPOLL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Perhaps with experience the member across the chamber will learn that those things are—
Mr Nikolic: It was an intervention. It was your opportunity to tell us how many jobs you created.
Mr RIPOLL: What we did was to specifically focus on all the things that are good in the things that you can focus on. Tasmania has lots of great opportunity, including a state government that has directly stumped up to create jobs. Let me talk about job creation, because this is how you create jobs. Right now, there are 2,250 small businesses that will benefit directly from changes to the payroll tax exemption threshold announced in the Tasmanian state budget. From 1 July this year, the threshold at which the payroll tax kicks in will be raised from $1 million to $1.25 million. This will directly support 2,250 businesses. It is estimated that this will add an additional 1,400 jobs. That is how you create jobs. You reduce the payroll tax. You do positive things.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr RIPOLL: Unless, of course, the LNP, the coalition government, are opposed to job creation and opposed to payroll tax reduction? This mob are—and this is where I started—confused. They are just confused. They do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha, whether they are coming or going. They are confused as to whether they are now actually the government or still in opposition, just tearing things down.
You criticise everything. You make the world sound a lot worse than it is. And it worked very well. I will give you credit. You are the masters of doing a great job of throwing rocks, tearing down, blowing the place up. You did a really good job of it. I commend you for tearing down the economy, because no-one did it better than the opposition, now the government! The Liberal and National parties were absolute experts.
But now you have a new job. The government's job now is to support the economy, support the states, support job creation. Get on with the job of being in government. Get on with supporting all the great things about Tasmania. Support the state government in Tasmania, which has done some very good things in job creation and in bringing down average unemployment rates through these changes to payroll tax.
There is one thing I know from small business: no matter where I go, in whichever state, Tasmania included, if I am talking to them, they say, 'One of the biggest things you could do is reduce payroll tax.' And that is what a Labor government has done. That is what we have done. And then I heard before that one of the government members wanted to talk about renewable energy. Well, hello, which century were you born in? Renewable energy is something that the Labor Party supports, helps create and fund—actually do something—because we understand that the future of this country is actually in renewables, clean energy. That is why I said—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr RIPOLL: I will finish, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through all the cacophony on the other side, I will finish on a positive note. I love the state of Tasmania, and I will not be talking it down; I will be talking it up.
Debate adjourned.
National Body Image Awareness Program
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:28): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) eating disorders and poor body image present a significant problem for both males and females in Australia; and
(b) the social messages given to people by their family, friends, teachers, medical professionals and the media can have a significant negative or positive impact on a person's body image; and
(2) calls on:
(a) all Members of Parliament to take a leading role in the promotion of healthy living, exercise and positive body image in Australia; and
(b) the Government to commit to continued support for the National Body Image awareness program.
It is highly likely that there are now more than one million people in Australia with an eating disorder. At the end of 2012, Deloitte Access Economics estimated that there were more than 913,000 people with eating disorders in Australia, and the number was climbing fast. It was estimated that more than 25,000 Australians suffer from anorexia, more than 100,000 from bulimia, almost 430,000 from a binge-eating disorder and another 350,000 from other eating disorders. The numbers are staggering and, truthfully, frightening. Eating disorders ruin lives and, in some cases, take lives. They are not lifestyle choices or diets gone too far; they speak to the state of our mental health and wellbeing.
I am pleased to note that, in my electorate, a new service will commence in the new year for adults with eating disorders. The 10-week outpatient program to be delivered by Hunter New England Health will give patients a new treatment option, filling the gap between the existing options of a one-hour counselling session or treatments requiring hospitalisation. Regional and rural residents often have to travel to major cities for treatment such as this, so I commend Hunter New England Health for introducing this new treatment option in Newcastle.
A major risk factor for developing an eating disorder is poor body image, which can manifest in a number of ways. While body image is a perception of oneself, it can be significantly influenced by external factors and social messaging. Poor body image like eating disorders does not discriminate in Australia; it affects men and women, young, old, Indigenous and non-Indigenous—and that has been a very significant change over the decades.
Mission Australia's 2013 youth survey, released last week, found that almost one-third of young Australians have serious body image concerns. Body image was a top 3 concern for the fourth straight year and for the first time was listed as a major concern for young Indigenous women with almost half of young women affected. Family, friends, teachers, medical professionals, public figures and the media all play a major role in influencing body image, both negatively and positively. Organisations like the Butterfly Foundation for Eating Disorders are helping to bring about change and improvement to practice in the prevention, treatment and support of those affected by eating disorders and poor body image. Their backing of initiatives like the Voluntary Industry Code of Conduct on Body Image for the fashion, advertising, media and entertainment industries is to be commended. The code of conduct was developed by the National Advisory Group on Body Image, appointed by the Labor government in 2009.
Unfortunately, their job of leading change is often made harder than it should be. Just two weeks ago, a fellow member of this House, the member for Bowman, who is the self-confessed 'most innovative user of social media in politics' made a disparaging comment on Facebook about what constitutes the average Australian woman. He claims that he was just trying to 'simply ask a question to promote debate'. Well, member for Bowman, can I suggest that in the future when you want to have a debate, rather than innovate using social media that you bring your point to this House and debate it here. As public figures we need to use our influence for good, both here in this House and in our electorates through our actions and through the media. Some of us are good at this already, but we can all improve.
The Deloitte and Mission Australia reports have made clear the extent to which eating disorders and poor body image are impacting our national health and wellbeing. Let us not ignore the evidence. It is time for this parliament to face the issue head on and I call on the government to assist in this by committing to the proper funding of initiatives like the national body image program. Organisations like the Butterfly Foundation for Eating Disorders are working hard to make a difference and it is our duty to lead debate and allow them to continue their good work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (12:34): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:34): I was drawn to the member for Newcastle's motion, because I think it is important that everyone in this country should acknowledge that they are the one who controls their own health. The decisions that we make impact foremost on our lives. If we eat McDonald's, KFC or Hungry Jack's, or any fast-food options, then that is a personal decision and we can expect that there will be a negative outcome. Similarly, a life without exercise will be a shorter life and an unhealthier life. It comes down to the decisions we make. This motion calls upon members of parliament to take a leading role in the promotion of healthy living, exercise and positive body image in Australia. Having a Prime Minister that can do marathons and triathlons is a very good thing for Australia; I personally will not be able to follow his lead in such events because, after 15 years in the army, my knees are in poor shape. Nevertheless, I agree that there is always a role for us to be examples to others.
However, it is first and foremost up to parents to be good role models for their children. It is even more important for parents to be the lead in this matter—who is it that goes out and buys the food for a home? And who is it that drives the car to fast-food outlets? It is parents who make the decisions on household budgets: fresh food or fast food; wants or needs; even alcohol and cigarettes or milk and vegetables. I hope that it is a rare dilemma, at least for that last question. While some may blame advertising or social media, it is the strength of character of us all that will overcome external influences and win the day. The internal, family influences are the most important factors; they eclipse external factors such as advertising or social media. I am a parent of two daughters, Emily, who is 15, and Rebecca, who has just turned 11. Whenever I look at Emily, I see her getting taller. I call her 'my biggest girl' with reference to how tall she is getting, to which she often says to me, 'Are you calling me fat?' It is a reminder that as parents we must be careful in our terminology, as it is obviously a point of sensitivity with adolescent girls. I am not, however, concerned about Emily's weight as I believe that she eats pretty well. As I previously said, parents are in control. By their example and their actions, they provide that image of normalcy to their children. If a child grows up seeing obese parents, the child will think that is normal and acceptable. If they grow up thinking fast food is a daily or almost daily option, they will think that is normal as well. The same thing goes for illicit drug use, drug abuse or smoking. Children see the examples in front of them and they will mirror those examples. The major factors playing a role in promoting good health are the examples and the actions provided by parents. Parents have the responsibility for providing a safe and healthy environment, and their success impacts on the way their children will then become parents themselves.
On the point of body image, despite setting the example ourselves as parents, and even after setting such a good example, there will be times when, perhaps, we will need to confront our children on matters such as weight gain or even weight loss. We should never say to our children: 'You are fat—lose some weight,' or even, 'You are too skinny.' There are ways to say these things properly, based on what is in the best interests of the child's health. But we should also never walk away from that responsibility. We as parents should not abrogate our responsibility for fear that any engagement could negatively impact upon their body image, and therefore be psychologically bad for our children.
This motion also calls upon the government to commit to the national body image awareness program. All government supported programs will be appropriately examined; however, we remain committed to the support and development of young people. With the record levels of debt run up by the previous government over six years, there are many challenges to be faced. High intergenerational debt should not be a burden we place upon young people.
In closing, I think that social media and the level of immediate communication available to young people sees them faced with pressures that previous generations have not faced as strongly. That being said, the leadership responsibility of parents and families needs to be stepped up. As parents, we must talk the talk and walk the walk—we must buy the right food; we must exercise; we must lead by example. We must be prepared to speak about healthy living and health issues, and we must not be scared off confronting these issues by terms such as body image. As members of parliament, we must be effective examples. But we should not overrate our importance or our level of influence, particularly compared to those in the main position, being parents and families.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (12:39): I want to start by congratulating the member for Newcastle on this very important motion that is before the House. As a slight point of disagreement with the previous speaker, I actually think that one of the most important things we do as members of parliament is to be community representatives. There are a lot of women in this House today, and a few men—we thank you for your contribution too—who are going to stand up and talk about what an important issue this is and how much it affects the lives of women all over Australia.
As women, we have a special role in making a contribution to this debate. Obviously body image and the illnesses that are associated with body image affect everyone but they very much affect the lives of women. I think all women in the chamber and in the gallery can think about and talk about times when this has really profoundly affected our lives—in almost all instances it has been an overwhelmingly negative impact.
About 70 per cent of all teenage girls right now are on a diet. Probably all of the women in here were one of them at one stage in our lives. It is unhealthy and it is a national problem. For some women we know that those concerns can degenerate, with severe and frequent dieting, into something much more serious in the form of eating disorder illnesses. Women my age have know a handful of girls at school or in other parts of our lives who have had the serious impacts of this, and who have often been hospitalised for conditions such as these, and some of them have lost their lives. So I think to trivialise this debate by talking about meals at McDonald's is frankly offensive.
As the member for Newcastle has talked about, almost one million Australians are experiencing an eating disorder right now and more than two million will experience this at some point in their lives. We know this particular problem affects young people. As the member for Newcastle pointed out, eating issues and body image have been nominated by young people as some of their most important issues—over the several years that this study was undertaken.
We also know that this is a particular problem affecting women. About 80 per cent of sufferers of eating disorders are women and 15 per cent of all women will experience an eating disorder at some point in their lives. This is a profound and serious health issue that affects many, many Australians.
I want to talk about the mortality issues that are associated with these very serious illnesses also. In 2012, about 1,800 Australians lost their lives due to eating disorder related illnesses. To put that into perspective, about 1,300 Australians lost their lives on the roads. When we think about the attention and the discussion that goes on in the community about our road toll and about the government resources involved, then consider that significantly more Australians are losing their lives through body image related issues, we see that those things highlight the importance of the motion moved by the member for Newcastle. It is a silent problem that does not get the attention it deserves.
Where does all this come from and what can we do about it? It is very well understood by people who are doing research into this area that a lot of the issues associated with body image and eating disorders come back to unrealistic expectations and images presented to women and men about how they should look. If you are confused about it, just take a fresh look around you when you get outside this building; you will find that very scantily clad women who are completely unrealistic representations of how women ought to look are being used to sell everything as irrelevant as deodorant to alcoholic drinks to cigarettes and all sorts of other things. I think it is really inappropriate. Close to 100 per cent of the images of women that we see used in advertising have been digitally altered. These are some of the most beautiful women in the world and yet they have to be digitally altered before people like us can look at them. I think it is sick and it is important that women like us in this chamber stand up and say so.
There are important links on these issues to other issues that affect women in the rest of the population. Academics have frequently noted—and I am going to quote Dr Jean Kilbourne—that 'turning a human being into a thing is always the first step in justifying violence against that person'. I remind the House that about 92 per cent of sexual assaults are made against women in Australia. So there are a number of issues that are wrapped up here in how the media represents women. The member for Newcastle has moved this very relevant motion today about how this affects body image and eating disorders. As community leaders we all need to stand up and say that this is unacceptable, and I do that today on behalf of the people of Hotham.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (12:44): Individuals in our community who have had issues with their physical appearance are sadly, as we have heard, on the increase. Usually when we think of a person's body image for males or females we think of one's shape and size. However, we unfortunately are seeing a broader range of variables that can have a negative impact on the way an individual sees himself or herself.
In particular, in my electorate, the potential for differences such as ethnic diversity, skin colour, religious diversity and the requirement for religious attire affecting young men and women's body image is quite significant. The Northern Territory, and indeed Darwin and Palmerston, is a melting pot of ethnic and cultural diversity, and this is almost always celebrated. But occasionally, particularly amongst our youth, this can be a source of bullying, exclusion and subsequently the development of negative body image.
A negative body image develops when an individual has negative feelings about himself or herself around his or her physical appearance. This can of course develop into some serious wellbeing issues and impacts significantly on one's mental health, to the extent that it can develop into serious psychological and physical issues such as eating disorders, social isolation, depression and anxiety and can even result in self-harm.
In order to combat negative body image in our community and to rid our youth of these horrible disorders, we must work together—government, non-government organisations, youth groups, schools and politicians. We all have to work together for this common goal. The Butterfly Foundation, who are here in the gallery, are arguably the leading body on combating the evil that is negative body image and eating disorders. Butterfly's vision and mission are to live in a world that celebrates health, wellbeing and diversity, and that is a mantra that all of us can aim to live by.
As my community's representative in the federal parliament, I am aware of my duty to promote healthy living, exercise and a positive body image in my electorate of Solomon and throughout Australia. To show my support for a positive body image and a healthy lifestyle, I present a positive image award each year to a local school in my electorate. Dripstone Middle School are holding their end-of-year presentation and awards night tonight back in my electorate. While I am disappointed that I am not going to be there, we have Rohan Kelly, an outstanding community leader, who will be presenting the positive image award to Izzy Jarvis on my behalf. Izzy has promoted consistently positive images and always worked in a positive manner while at Dripstone Middle School.
As I said previously, it is important that our community and its leaders take a united approach towards the promotion of a healthy mind and a healthy body. Another school in my electorate, Rosebery Middle School, along with Palmerston Senior College, is involved in a partnership program with Palmerston Girls Academy. The program challenges the girls physically and focuses on components of a healthy lifestyle, nutrition, positive self-image, work readiness, leadership, team building and emotional and self wellbeing.
Recently I attended the Palmerston Girls Academy awards night, and I was delighted at the incredible results this program has achieved in such a short time. The year 7 cohort had no suspensions, which was just an amazing achievement, and the 97 per cent of the girls involved in the program received positive comments in the school system. This is in contrast to a couple of years ago, where there were 127 negative entries. The girls had very, very poor self-image, were not attending school and were not doing lots of other things. The attendance rates have been absolutely outstanding. In all cohorts, over 80 per cent of the girls were attending school, so they were obviously feeling good about themselves.
I have said that I am committed to being involved with this program because I have seen firsthand how it works and the incredible positive results that this impact is having on our schoolkids in our community. These goals are something that I am confident that our government will support, and I will certainly be showing my support by doing my best as a member of this parliament to advocate and educate my electorate about the sad and unrealistic promotion of body image that is detrimental to our youth.
I just want to finish by saying that at the Palmerston Girls Academy the award for best and fairest was to Lateesha Coombes. The award for best training attendance was to Edna Tom. The Palmerston Girls Academy community member of the year was Peggy Tom. (Time expired)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:49): It is with great sadness today that I speak on this matter. I thank the member for Newcastle for her initiative in bringing it before the House, and I welcome the comments from the members for Hotham and Solomon, because it is a most important issue. From working closely with young people, I know the terrible impacts that our society's obsession with a superficial notion of beauty is having on the confidence, self-esteem and mental health of many.
I have seen it with my students and I have seen it with my children's friends. I have seen it too many times. I have seen its impact firsthand as children moved into adolescence. In its least destructive manifestations, it stunts the confidence of our young people. They become self-critical and unhappy, and their bodies can never replicate the images with which they are bombarded. In its worst manifestations, it slowly takes over lives becoming all encompassing, damaging physical and mental health. It is insidious, isolating and intransigent. And it is not an issue that affects only my community. Negative body image and disordered eating behaviours do not discriminate based on age, gender, race or wealth. It is pervasive and it is widespread, and it has the potential to end people's lives. It is not a problem that is going away.
The National Eating Disorders Collaboration estimates that around one in 20 Australians has an eating disorder, and it is a rate that is increasing. In fact, between 1995 and 2005, the prevalence of eating disorders doubled among both males and females. We are seeing an increase in hospital admissions for treatment of children under 10 years old with disordered eating behaviours. The Butterfly Foundation has reported that calls for help to their support line increased 200 per cent in 2013. While we sometimes hear a lot about these issues, we as a community need a greater understanding of what it is we are really facing.
Eating disorders are a group of very serious and multifaceted mental illnesses. They involve disturbed eating behaviours and a significant distortion of body image and its relationship to self-worth. Those who suffer from these illnesses can face psychiatric and behavioural difficulties, medical complications, permanent disability but they can also face long-term social, financial and functional impairment. Of course, the impact of an eating disorder is not only felt by the affected individual; it is also felt by families, friends, classmates and communities. I have witnessed the impact on families and caregivers—stress, loss of income, disruption to relationships and a high risk of suicide. The human cost is hard to watch, harder I know to bear. But the cost to the economy is also significant.
The total socioeconomic cost of eating disorders last year was estimated by Deloitte to be at $69.7 billion. The figure includes financial costs of close to $100 million for the health system and $15.1 billion a year in lost productivity. As you can see, it is an issue that has the potential to harm the entire community. It was with this in mind that the previous Labor governments acted. In 2010, we launched the National Eating Disorders Collaboration. It brings together around 540 eating disorder stakeholders in public health, mental health, education and research as well as the media. Together, they are developing a national and consistent approach to the prevention and management of eating disorders in Australia. In the same push, we launched the National Body Image Awareness Program. The program aims to create awareness around some of the causes affecting negative body image, including the role of the media, fashion and beauty industries. Both these programs reflect the understanding of Labor governments that negative body image and eating disorders need to be a health priority. It reflects our commitment to promoting healthy living, exercise and positive personal body image, and our belief that we, as representatives of our communities, have a role to play in addressing these issues. It is an imperative that the current government show the same determination to act because there is still more to be done. It is vitally important that we continue existing support services, assist ongoing research and ensure the best chance of success: early intervention. The impact of these illnesses are being felt in our homes, in our communities and across our nation. I call on the coalition government to confirm their commitment to addressing these issues and not leave this to fester.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (12:54): I never met a meal I did not like. I grew up in a household where the preparation of good food and its consumption was at the bedrock of our cultural behaviours. That was until I turned 13. When I turned 13, my older sibling introduced to our family a significant other. She was slimmer than members of our family and it was only 12 months later that I came to understand why it was that she was so slim. So I speak from a unique perspective today because I have seen firsthand the impact of eating disorders not just on individuals, which others have spoken so well about in this place today, but on partners. Little is said about these insidious diseases, but even less is said about the impact on extended familial relationships, particularly on partners.
I met my partner many years later and, in a cruel twist of fate, she too suffered from issues with body image. So, whilst I watched my brother deal with the consequences of his relationship and his partner's illness, I then had to live it myself. A strange form of pain comes from walking with someone physically and metaphorically on the journey of life and thinking to yourself: 'Do people think that she's so thin because I ate all the food?'
I do not wish to be flippant about this issue. The real issue here is the unrealistic betrayal of body image in the media. Why we need to take some of the most attractive people on earth and airbrush them does not stand to reason. The media plays its role as well. I was disappointed to see during the last federal election campaign that, particularly in the seat of Adelaide, the media—and I apportion no blame to our opponents—seemed to want to frame the debate on a beauty contest between the Liberal candidate and the now member for Adelaide, which was a particularly unfair way of going about it.
It is trite to say that as members of parliament we need to take a lead role on this issue. In this, as in all things, I think members of parliament need to be citizens of high regard. In this way I acknowledge the very real and positive impact that Prime Minister Abbott has in this space. Whether he is riding, running or swimming, his actions lead by example. I acknowledge the important role that family has to play in this space. After all, it was my strong familial links that allowed us to get through our issues. I worry deeply about my young daughter and hope that she does not have to face the challenges that others in her family have.
I also take this opportunity to note an important deficiency in rural and regional Australia. I do not speak for all of rural and regional Australia but I do speak for the people of Barker. The electorate of Barker is 64,000 square kilometres and it has a population of 100,000 people. We do not have a single resident psychiatrist. If we are truly to combat these insidious diseases we need, at least, to recognise these psychiatric disorders and develop face-to-face trusted therapeutic relationships, and those are only achieved by one-on-one intervention by trained medical health professionals. It saddens me that, in an electorate as rich and as diverse as mine, we still do not have a resident psychiatrist operating in the region.
As with all grants and programs, the government will be examining this program over the next year. Our government are committed to a healthier Australia. It is disappointing that the government inherited a parlous and unsustainable budget, due to the mismanagement of others. It saddens me that the legacy of this debt might impact on our ability to deal with this very real issue. The government are focusing on ensuring that Australians are not faced with the burden of high intergenerational debt that was left to them by Labor. The best support and/or policy that the government can give to Australians and Australian youth, in particular, is a strong and prosperous economy that provides job opportunities in a budget that is under control.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:58): I, too, rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the member for Newcastle. I would like to thank the previous speaker, the member for Barker, for his comments and note in particular the comments around the election campaign and the apparent beauty contest that was played out in Adelaide. I do not believe that we can apportion the blame to the media alone. The comments of the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, during the campaign about 'sex appeal' may also have led to the media running comments about beauty competitions. I will speak later in my speech about the need for parliamentarians to show leadership. It is great to see members of the government standing up and showing their leadership here today. Perhaps this is an issue that could be focused on in tactics or in their caucus room—that what we say during election campaigns and what we say in the media can lead to broader explosions of unrealistic ideals, images and portrayal of women in the media.
Eating disorders and poor body image present a significant problem to both males and females in Australian society. We tend to focus on the end of the spectrum which includes anorexia and associated eating disorders, but this is about the other end of the spectrum too—obesity. We need to view the problem of eating disorders and poor body image right across the spectrum. Social messages given to people by families, friends, teachers, medical professionals and the media can have either a significant positive or negative effect on a person's body image.
Researchers from Victoria's Deakin University interviewed 70 children aged eight to ten to identify what body shapes boys considered ideal and to compare those with the body ideals of young girls. My local paper reported some of the comments. The young boys had the idea that to be a healthy individual, you had to be ripped. For young girls it was about being skinny and beautiful. For boys it was linked to the idea of sport and culture. These are the images that young people are led to believe are important today.
Whose fault is it? Whose responsibility is it? Where are we going as a community on this issue? In my own local area, we do not have a good story to tell. A recent report found that Bendigo is in the midst of an obesity crisis, with 41 per cent of people living in the region now classed as obese. This links directly with our motion about poor body image. It is true what health professionals are saying—that, as a society, we need to move more and eat less. But we also need to focus on the mental state—how we are mentally perceiving this issue. The old concept is that of a healthy body and healthy mind. These two issues cannot be disconnected. It is about how we think, how we feel, how we eat and how we move.
We are in the midst of an obesity crisis and at the same time have a growing number of young people at the other end of the spectrum—young people who have been identified as having other forms of eating disorder. What are we doing as a community to tackle it? The findings in recent reports by the City of Greater Bendigo speak about the role that governments can play. One issue I would like to mention briefly is that of play spaces. For children aged over 12, there are very few opportunities to engage in physically activity. There is a critical shortage of bike paths. You cannot get to and from school by riding your bike. You have to walk on a main road. It is simply not safe. The investment needed to address this issue is not occurring.
Our role as parliamentarians is to show leadership. There need to be words and actions that are positive. This does need to be bipartisan. Body image should not be politicised, and any attempts to deliberately be controversial in this space just exacerbate an already known problem.
Debate adjourned.
Rural Clinical Schools
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) celebrates the success of Rural Clinical Schools (RCS) around Australia, commenced in 1999 by the then Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, and continued by his successor, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP;
(2) notes that:
(a) RCS were designed to overcome the maldistribution of all doctors including general practitioners across Australia, which left country regions short of general practitioners and other specialty doctors;
(b) students undertaking training in rural locations have academic results that are equal to or better than their metropolitan counterparts;
(c) published data from public universities show high rates of RCS graduates working in, or intending to work in rural areas; and
(d) the information gathered through an independent project tracking all Australian and New Zealand medical students—Medical Schools Outcomes Database—demonstrates that long term placements in a rural setting through RCS have a significant impact on the vocational choice and intention to practice in a rural or remote setting as well as future career specialty focus; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) continue its support for these excellent initiatives; and
(b) examine opportunities to increase intern and postgraduate training places in rural locations to enhance the future of specialty medical service delivery with a focus on general practitioners in rural and regional Australia.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:04): The issue of the training and retention of country doctors is an age-old one. This is a challenge which many regional and rural communities, including many of those in the Riverina electorate, have faced for some time. I am pleased to rise to support this motion and to inform the House of a couple of proactive moves in the Riverina to increase the training and retention of country doctors. There are many good examples of how the Riverina is playing its part in trying to solve the issue of rural access to general practice, allied health and specialist care. I commend the member for Murray for moving this motion. It is a good one. The member for Murray has an electorate like the Riverina with many towns which need more general practitioners and more country doctors, and I am pleased to speak to this motion today.
Dr Stone's motion has three central tenets. The first is that this House celebrates the success of rural clinical schools around Australia, started in 1999 by the then minister for health, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, and continued by his successor, the now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. This is something which all country members in this place should agree on. We represent communities which rural clinical schools are helping to better service, and in celebrating and recognising such a contribution we can continue to better service those communities which still need more GPs, such as Hay in the Farrer electorate.
Point (2)(a) is a very important one. It notes that RCSs were designed to overcome the maldistribution of all doctors, including GPs, across Australia which left country regions short of GPs and other specialty doctors. In this debate today it is important to remember the main challenge here is the training and retention of doctors in rural and remote areas, not larger regional cities. On 24 May this year I attended the Charles Sturt University Regional Health Conference in Canberra, alongside my colleagues the member for Bowman and the Hon. Melinda Pavey MLC, New South Wales Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health. The point of this symposium was clear: the challenge for regional health lies not in how to attract doctors to larger regional cities but instead to smaller towns and communities whose access to general practice is far worse than for those in bigger centres. I might note that we have in the chamber today Irene Broad from Temora, who during her time on Temora Shire Council did a great amount of work, particularly for that community, and was certainly there at the opening of the medical complex in Hoskins Street. She has with her former Filipino congressmen Alfredo Abueg and also a special Olympian, Alfred Abueg. Both are here to visit Australia and look at the many areas and aspects of Australia and what we are doing, including in health.
The member for Murray's motion highlights that students undertaking training in rural locations have academic results that are equal to or better than their metropolitan counterparts, and that published data from public universities show higher rates of RCS graduates working in, or intending to work in, rural areas. Dr Stone is right. The need to get more country doctors to go to more regional and remote locations is something Dr John Preddy, a Wagga Wagga-based paediatrician and lecturer at Wagga Wagga's University of New South Wales Rural Clinical School, understands well and is passionate about. Dr Preddy has been championing this cause in Wagga Wagga and the wider area for many years. He realises, as many country communities do, that remote GPs are much more needed in smaller communities than they are in coastal cities or larger inland regional centres.
Dr Preddy has provided some very pleasing statistics about UNSW's Rural Clinical School program and its contribution to country medicine in the Riverina. He told me today that the Wagga Wagga Rural Clinical School currently has 50 students enrolled, with 16 set to graduate this year. Almost half of those, Dr Preddy said, are students who are already from rural, regional or remote areas—they are country kids. There are currently 18 interns at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, 17 of whom are graduates from UNSW's Rural Clinical School in town. Further to this, Dr Preddy said the school has recently conducted a survey of the career intentions of their students. Of those students, 70 per cent have indicated they want to work in remote general practice. That is great. They do not want to work in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, they do not want to work in coastal centres; they want to be a rural and remote GP and treat patients in the areas which need it most, like Hay and like Temora, and that is something we should commend. Recently, Dr Preddy met with my National Party colleagues Senator the Hon. Fiona Nash, Assistant Minister for Health, and the member for Lyne, himself a former rural specialist, along with Dr Lesley Forster, Kate Pitney and Josh Lane, the last two of whom are students at Wagga Wagga's RCS, to tell us of their great work and to share those statistics. They are to be commended for their work in this area.
I also commend Charles Sturt University for lobbying for the next step up, a rural medical school for Wagga. I know UNSW is also actively working in this space. It is very important to note that the rural medical school implementation committee at Wagga Wagga, headed by Dr Nick Stephenson, is working towards getting a rural medical school. That is the next step, that is what we need. I support this motion put forward by the member for Murray.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:09): I also commend the member for Murray for raising what is an incredibly important issue which should be important to all Australians, and that is the quality of medical care available to our rural Australians. In my area of Western Sydney we, too, from time to time have had trouble in attracting and keeping the kinds of qualified professionals that we needed. We also found that the opening of the clinical school in Blacktown has had an incredible effect in retaining people in the professions in our area.
But there is something about this motion that I would like to point out, and that is what appears to be an attempt to really airbrush out the fact that there ever has been a Labor government for the last six years. It refers back to what was happening before 2007. I understand that the member for Murray might prefer that the focus be on that, so I would actually like to start there and just point out to the member for Murray that, while there might have been some clinical schools open, there were some very real issues in regional Australia when we came to government in 2007.
It was the case then that for some types of cancer you were twice as likely to die of that cancer if you were diagnosed in a regional centre than if you were diagnosed in a city. For some forms of cancer it was up to four times. So there was an incredible amount of work to do for the Labor government on its election in 2007. I just want to walk through some of the things that the Labor government did in order to improve the quality of health care in regional Australia, and it was quite apparent that it was necessary to do so. In doing this, I do not want to pretend for a minute that the work is done. The deficit for regional Australia was great, and still remains quite substantial.
But there was the $134.4 billion Rural Health Workforce Strategy, designed to encourage doctors to work in some of the most isolated rural and remote communities. As a result, since 1 July 2010 around 11,000 doctors have been assessed as eligible to receive payments each year to move to and/or continue practising in regional areas. As a result of that, there was a 21 per cent increase in the number of GPs providing services in regional and remote areas of Australia between 2007 and 2011.
There was $345 million to deliver 1,300 more general practitioners practising or training by 2013, and 5,500 new GPs or GPs undergoing training in the next decade, with 50 per cent of those positions going to rural and regional Australia.
There was $370.8 million over three years for the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program, which includes the Rural Clinical Training and Support program, referred to in the member's motion; the Dental Training—Expanding Rural Placements Program; the University Departments of Rural Health Program; and the John Flynn Placement Program to support rural clinical placements and training for medical, nursing and allied health students.
There was $6.5 million for 400 more clinical placement scholarships over four years for allied health students in rural and remote areas, bringing the total to 1,000 people over four years. There was $34.1 million for a Nursing and Allied Health Rural Locum Scheme that will fund 3,000 nurse locum placements and 400 allied help locum placements in rural areas over four years. There was $390.3 million to support an expanded and more flexible role for nurses in general practice, particularly in chronic disease management and prevention, with a special loading for those working in rural areas. And there was $12 million over four years for the Rural Health Continuing Education program to provide access to accredited continuing professional development support for medical specialists, allied health professionals, nurses, general practitioners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers in rural and remote areas. And of course there was the $77.7 million over four years for the relocation and infrastructure grants to encourage and support dentists to relocate and practice in regional, rural and remote areas.
So, again, while no-one would even begin to assume that the deficit in rural health services has been solved—it still remains; it was substantial when we came to government in 2007 and it has been substantial for many decades—there has been considerable work done in the last six years, and it is a shame that the member for Murray has tried to airbrush out the last six years of the Labor government rather than acknowledge that work was done, in quite a collaborative manner, I should say, with members opposite who now sit on the government bench.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:14): I commend the member for Murray for moving this motion. In addressing maldistribution in the workforce that makes it harder to get health practitioners working in rural areas, there are really four elements that need to be addressed. You need to address the students who are entering the courses; you need to address the encouragement and the exposure they get to rural practice during their course; you need to address where they are doing their postgraduate training; and then you need to look at the incentives which are there to assist people who are practising in a rural setting. All of the universities and the medical schools have come a long way with the establishment of rural medical schools. The previous coalition government created nine new medical schools, including some in regional areas. We also doubled the number of medical school places, but the establishment of the clinical skills program in 2000 did provide a much longer-term and more concrete commitment to having people trained in a rural setting.
There are currently 17 rural clinical schools across Australia. In my electorate of Boothby, Flinders University runs two rural clinical schools. They have one based in Renmark, which covers Mount Gambier, the Hills and Fleurieu regions and Warrnambool—the greater green triangle—and they also cover all of the Northern Territory. Flinders University says that is a very important part of their mission. I visited their Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs. The University of Adelaide is specifically focused on the Spencer Gulf and its main cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln. The Dean of Medicine at Flinders University, Dr Paul Worley, has long been interested in this issue. He pioneered the parallel rural curriculum, which started in the Riverland and which allowed people to spend one whole year of their medical training in a rural general practice setting. The initiative has since been introduced around Australia and around the world.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the member from Murray and to say that she has correctly identified that increasing numbers of medical students are coming through and we are looking at where they are going to do their training. It will be important to have increased training places in rural settings and in private-sector settings as well. The initiative of the PGPPP has been very important, allowing people to spend part of their intern year in a rural general practice setting. We have detailed information about districts of workforce shortage at the Department of Health, which has a database on this, but it is still very clear that we need to do much more to address the maldistribution in a rural setting. The rural clinical skills program has been an important part of this.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (13:18): I rise to support the motion before us today and in doing so I would like to say that prior to the Labor government being elected in 2007 there was a chronic shortage of health professionals in rural Australia. The Beyond the Blame Game report that was tabled in December 2006 identified the maldistribution of health professionals as a major issue. I remember Terry Clout, who was the head of the Hunter-New England Area Health Service at the time, commenting that the further you were from the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the greater the maldistribution was and the fewer health services you could access. Based on that 2006 blame game report, the Labor government of the day really worked to address that maldistribution of health workers and put in place a lot of programs designed to address that.
I would like to refer to Health Workforce Australia's National Rural and Remote Workforce Innovation and Reform Strategy, released in May 2013. That strategy talks about a plan for improving the health workforce and the distribution of doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. It examines the specialties in Australia. It makes some key findings, one of which is that there are not enough general practitioners and medical specialists in regional and rural Australia. For years the shortage has been taken up by overseas-trained doctors. Earlier today the member for Kingston was talking about the freezing of funds for clinical placements. This is all part of ensuring we have trained health professionals.
An item on the ABC reported on the fact that $8 million had been committed by the previous government over a four-year period for getting trained doctors for rural and remote areas, and an additional 60 intern places were to be created. Tony Wells, from Rural Health Workforce, said he welcomed students wanting to work in the rural environment being encouraged to do so. What was the response from the then opposition? The Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss, who I would see as somebody who would be totally committed to getting more doctors and nurses and allied health professionals out in rural and regional Australia, said that he would not commit to matching Labor's pledge. I found that very disappointing because I know just how important it is to have trained health professionals in rural and remote areas. I know that the Rural Doctors Association of Australia has been concerned about this over a long period. This is a very important issue and one that needs to be addressed.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:23): I am delighted to speak in support of this motion on rural clinical schools. We have seen real benefits from this initiative. As a medical specialist myself, and having spent the last 20 years in the regions, I have seen what rural clinical schools can deliver.
This initiative was introduced by the federal government back in 1999, and the aim was to decentralise medical training. Now we have 17 rural clinical schools, established by 16 of the 19 universities with medical faculties. In our electorate we have a campus of the University of New South Wales School of Rural Health, in Port Macquarie, and in the Manning, in Taree, we have the University of Newcastle Department of Rural Health and Rural Clinical School. They have both delivered great results. There is a lot of evidence showing the benefits of this rural clinical schools program. The likelihood of a doctor ending up in rural practice once they have finished their training doubles if they come from a rural background. Another factor that helps is having a partner who went to high school in a rural location. But there is something else that will help, and that is rural postgraduate training, as rural clinical schools and universities only turn out half-cooked doctors. They graduate with a degree but the gestation period for producing a clinician who can practise safely and competently takes at least another four years.
Since 2003 we have had a massive increase in the number of medical undergraduates. It has gone from 1,266 to 3,185 graduating in 2015. But Australian cities have 370 doctors per 100,000 people, and some of the inner city areas have even greater concentrations than that versus 200 per 100,000 people in the rural and regional areas, and even less in the remote areas. But at graduation, most of the people leaving the rural clinical schools expressed a great desire to go into rural practice. In fact, at the University of Sydney rural clinical school, 80 per cent said they wanted to go into rural practice, and at the University of New South Wales rural clinical school, that figure was 72 per cent.
How do we convert this into a doctor who decides to live and work in a rural location? The answer is to keep this system going and then support it, because we have half the recipe there; we just need the rest of it. The remaining part of the recipe is to get post-graduate training expanded in these rural locations, because it is during this extended gestation of producing a skilled doctor that people set down their roots. They partner off, they make real estate purchases, they have children, they have developed social networks and all of this is lost if they are forced back into the cities to do their post-graduate training. As the head of the Australian Medical Students Association said the other day:
Medical graduates can't fix a rural workforce shortage if there aren't rural jobs to go to. Without an expanded rural training capacity, the new doctors would be forced to return to the cities—
Just as I was outlining:
There, they would likely settle down.
My case rests, even the students have recognised that.
Evidence that rurally-based post-graduate training delivers results is striking. The statistics of the professor of General Practice and Education Training Limited indicate that if you have had GP training in a rural location for half your time, there is a 46 per cent chance that you will stay practicing in a rural location for at least five years. That is a pretty good strike rate; 46 per cent—a cricketer would be glad if he had a strike rate like that, let alone producing a doctor.
In my own little patch we turned the Port Macquarie Base Hospital from the humble Hastings District Hospital into a post-graduate teaching centre and examination centre. We have a rural clinical school and twelve or more advanced trainees—baby specialists. After converting it into a training centre, we now have two specialist cardiologists, one specialist chest physician, one specialist dermatologist, one specialist A&E physician and one infectious diseases specialist residing in Port Macquarie. That is not a bad strike rate out of the medical registrars that we trained in Port Macquarie. (Time expired)
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:28): Thank you for the opportunity to briefly add to this debate. I am very pleased to be able to support the intention of the motion that was moved by the member for Murray. To take up the point made by my colleague the member for Parramatta, I will talk about the ongoing commitment that the previous Labor government gave to the work of establishing the training opportunities for young people in rural and regional Australia so that we could aim to keep workforces in those areas.
As one example, when I was the Minister for Higher Education and Skills in May this year I was very pleased to announce $59 million for the La Trobe Rural Health School. That was designed specifically to ensure that rural Victorians would benefit from up to 1,700 extra health professionals that would be produced by that rural health school over the four years. We were also announcing new facilities that were being built at that particular facility. The school was a boost for the local community, obviously, and for regional Victoria more broadly. It will bring new students into the area and provide training and education opportunities for young people who already live in the area. It is specifically aimed at addressing regional Victoria's need for more allied health professionals.
It was a great joy to be at that particular announcement and it was very welcome. In fact, we were told that, in the range of fields that the students would be studying, they are significantly more likely to stay in a regional area having studied in a regional facility. The same was true at La Trobe. The university's Vice Chancellor Professor John Dewar said that 71 per cent of graduates from the campus choose to continue to work in regional Victoria, so it is an issue that the previous Labor government continued to give a great focus to.
One of the important parts of that particular initiative was also the provision of funding for student accommodation, and I was very pleased to be able also to attend the new housing that we had funded in areas like Shepparton and Albury-Wodonga in order to provide accommodation for students when they were doing their placements. Under the Education Investment Fund we put significant money into those sorts of facilities.
I also want to take the opportunity to recognise my own university in my hometown of Wollongong, which has a medical school as well. They have very strong links with GP services across regional and rural New South Wales, again with a view to having students from those areas recruited into the courses and to sustain their links with their regional hometowns to be able to do placements in those areas and to be supported by the university in doing that. Again, it is exactly targeted at providing a workforce. It is such an important issue for our rural and regional areas.
I particularly want to acknowledge that the Pro Vice Chancellor of Health from the University of Wollongong is a fantastic man called Professor Don Iverson. Sadly we have just been informed that he will be resigning from his position at the university. He was appointed the Dean of the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences at the university in July 2001. In December 2006 he was made executive dean of the faculty, and in June 2009 he was made Pro Vice Chancellor (Health). He also functions as the executive director for a very important medical research facility at the university, the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, and the money for that was announced by the previous Labor state government.
He had an extensive and illustrious career in the US and Canada before he came to Wollongong. The partnership that he leads in medical research between the university and the South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service has been very strongly focused on creating partnerships with community; with professionals working in our community, particular in the area of cancer research, as well as with many of the local community organisations who fundraise and work to support people in our local area.
Don Iverson is loved across the community. It is not often that you come into a huge place like the University of Wollongong and have a whole community know who you are, and that is absolutely the case with Don. He has been a huge asset to our university and to our region. I want to pay a great tribute to the work that he has done, to wish him all the best in his future endeavours and to assure him that he will always be welcome to address health issues in Wollongong at any time—to come and knock on my door, it will always be open to him. I pay tribute to his community service.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:33 to 16:00
CONDOLENCES
Mandela, Mr Rolihlahla (Nelson) Dalibhunga, AC
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 5 December 2013, of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela AC, former President of the Republic of South Africa, place on record its acknowledgement of his role in the development of the modern South Africa nation and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (16:00): I pay tribute to Nelson Mandela and express my condolences, as so many Australians have, to Mr Mandela's widow, Graca Machel, his children and the people of South Africa. Although we all knew that Nelson Mandela was seriously ill, I was still deeply saddened when I heard of his death last Friday morning as I landed in Beijing.
Mandela was a towering figure of our time, such that I feel sure everyone will remember 6 December as the day we stopped to think of this great man and what his life meant to his country of South Africa and to the world. Mandela was truly one of the most recognised and greatest figures of the 20th century, an icon of resistance against repression who became a champion of reconciliation. Mandela will also be remembered as an advocate for human dignity, for freedom and for justice. He was truly one of the most inspirational leaders of our time: a great political leader, a courageous moral leader.
Nelson Mandela's management of South Africa's peaceful transition from apartheid is one of the 20th century's greatest displays of positive leadership. He was the person to whom many turned to look for guidance on issues of forgiveness, respect and how to make a positive individual contribution to our times. He transformed not only his country, South Africa, but also Africa and the rest of the world. Through the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, when South Africa was a polarised, divided and rather desperate country, there seemed little chance that it could be turned into a modern democracy without first suffering through an appalling civil war. It did not seem possible that the injustices, humiliation, exploitation and deep divisions apartheid had created could ever easily be overcome.
We pinned our hopes on the sporting and economic sanctions in the hope that they might force the white regime to change its course. But, put simply, it was the towering force of one man, Nelson Mandela, which changed the destiny of South Africa. Many other people played important roles, but Mandela gave something crucial—his wisdom, his compassion and, almost unbelievably, his forgiveness—so that a peaceful transition was achieved. The people of South Africa, and indeed the world, owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for sparing the world from what could have been a tragedy if South Africa had continued down a path of racial violence into civil war.
Nelson Mandela showed black South Africans that change could be achieved through peaceful ways. He showed the white minority that they did not need to fear a new democratic South Africa. Mandela had the wisdom, the courage and the humanity to understand that peaceful change was what was needed in South Africa. Despite the long years of confinement and personal deprivation he suffered on Robben Island he was able to show enormous strength of courage. He did something we should all aspire to do: he showed forgiveness—forgiveness to the prison wardens, forgiveness to the white regime—so that South Africa could move on to a better future.
He certainly overcame many personal challenges in his life. We should not gloss over the years he spent struggling against the brutal regime in the years before his imprisonment. I think one of his most enduring quotes, and there are many, which sums up the man is:
I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.
It was through his personal example that the rest of the country was able to forgive and come together in a peaceful way and transform South Africa into the modern, democratic country it is today.
His leadership as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999 was truly inspirational. He started the process of healing the deep wounds created by decades of bitter apartheid. He showed the people of South Africa that they had more to gain by working cooperatively together. He helped to turn around the economy by reassuring the white population that they had a future in the new South Africa, which helped stem a great potential loss of capital, human capital and knowledge.
Nelson Mandela's management of South Africa's peaceful transition from apartheid is extraordinary. Despite his numerous achievements, he will be remembered foremost for his humility and his humanity. Encapsulating this, Malcolm Fraser, as the then Co-chairman of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, recalled his first meeting with Nelson Mandela before his release from prison. Mandela's first words were, 'Mr Fraser, is Don Bradman still alive?' The Don was later to inscribe a bat to Mandela with the words 'To Nelson Mandela, in recognition of a great unfinished innings'.
Australia has a long and proud history of engagement with South Africa and support for Mr Mandela and the anti-apartheid struggle. Australian welcomed Nelson Mandela to our shores in October 1990 as a true friend, and more than 100,000 people listened to his speech on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. In 1994, Mandela chose Australia as the first country outside Africa to visit as President and thank for its support in the anti-apartheid struggle. In 1999, Prime Minister John Howard honoured him with our nation's highest award, the Companion of the Order of Australia, in a ceremony at our High Commission in Pretoria in recognition of his leadership and of the example of reconciliation he and South Africa had given the world. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, Australian communities and church groups devoted themselves to his cause. Reflecting strong community sentiment at home, successive Australian governments from both major parties campaigned in international forums against the apartheid system and in support of a representative and democratic South Africa.
Nelson Mandela is considered a hero whose struggles, sacrifices and moral stature led to the election of the first truly democratic, fully representative government in South Africa. Today, despite the inequalities which remain as a result of the apartheid era, South Africa continues to embrace democratic freedoms. The economy, while facing many challenges, is relatively strong and stable. South Africa is a respected voice on the international stage, stemming in part from the high esteem with which Nelson Mandela was regarded by the international community.
Nelson Mandela will be deeply mourned and missed. He was a man who made a difference to the life of our times.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (16:07): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this condolence motion. I do so, I suspect, as one of the few members of this parliament, or perhaps the only member of this parliament, who had the privilege of knowing Nelson Mandela. For me, it was a unique and very special privilege, and I want to recount why.
In my very early years, before I came to this parliament, I participated in debates in my own political party, which were sometimes difficult and divisive, over both South Africa, with its apartheid system, and Zimbabwe. There were two leaders of significance that we came to support: in South Africa, Mandela, and, in Zimbabwe, Mugabe. I think they have taken very different paths. For me, the magnanimity of Nelson Mandela is what has really distinguished him from his fellow continental leaders, if I might put it in that way.
Just think about it. Australia, for a time, supported the apartheid regime. Many were anxious about it and sought to see change. I can remember when members of this parliament in my very early years would receive invitations from the South African government to go and see for themselves firsthand the apartheid regime and why it should be supported. I could never bring myself to accept that offer of hospitality. For me, the system was so insidious that it was something that I could not bring myself in any way, shape or form to support.
I had a unique opportunity to go to South Africa in 1994 as one of the five Commonwealth observers of the elections—the first democratic elections for South Africa. It included John Cain, a former Premier of Victoria; Janine Haines, the former leader of the Australian Democrats in the Senate; Dr Duncan Chappell; and the chief electoral commissioner. It was a unique experience for me. I have never been an election observer before. I did not think the elections were faultless, but it earned me the enmity of many of my colleagues when I raised some of the faults who were of the view that it should be supported unequivocally. But the moments that I remember and are etched forever with me were to see Mandela at the Athlone Stadium in Cape Town, where he addressed one of the largest crowds of people that I have ever seen. I still have photographs in my office of Mandela on a vehicle being driven around the perimeter of the stadium before he spoke.
He was a man of enormous presence. Of course the election outcome was quite decisive. I often remind school parties visiting parliament of the first democratic elections in South Africa. Why do I do that? It is because I want to emphasise the importance of democracy and what it means, and what a privilege it is to be able to participate in elections. What etched it in my memory was standing beside some people of South Africa waiting to vote on that day, sometimes all day, in queues outside their polling booths. Their patience and their willingness to participate in those first democratic elections was something unique and something special.
When I first rose, I compared the results in South Africa with the results in Zimbabwe. Only two years ago, I had the opportunity of visiting South Africa again and Zimbabwe. The results are very, very different. The suffering of the people of Zimbabwe, the reduction in their collective standard of living and the nature of the administration of the Mugabe regime have, I think, left that country greatly diminished. Mandela's leadership has had quite a different outcome, an inclusive outcome—the rainbow society, as it has been called, a situation in which they have not deprived themselves of the economic opportunities that can be gained by retaining the skills and capacities of their people. I am not saying it is perfect, but I think Mandela played a unique and very special role in uniting the people of South Africa. For that, not only should South Africa be grateful but the world should be grateful for his very effective leadership.
Having witnessed that, it was a great privilege for me to meet him here in Australia at Kirribilli House with John Howard and on other occasions when he came to these premises. I had seen a man who had suffered a great deal. Interestingly, I recall the condolence motion only a little while ago when we spoke about the late Michael Hodgman. He, as one of the early members of the parliamentary Amnesty group here in Canberra, lamented that because Mandela would not eschew the use of violence initially in relation to the ANC as it sought a change, he was never adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty—quite remarkable.
I visited Robben Island. I saw where he was held. I saw the way in which he endured so many years imprisonment, unjustly. But here was a man, after all he had endured, who was still able to forgive, to seek reconciliation and to build a nation. I do not think any of us will see a man of this ilk in our lifetime again. It is a remarkable story. He has been a great person of the world, one we should justly celebrate, as they are in South Africa, for his life and all that he was able to achieve.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (16:15): I join other members in expressing our condolences over the passing of the former South African President, Nelson Mandela. I would also like to associate myself with the fine words of the Chief Government Whip in his recollections of what this man meant to him and, indeed, what this man has meant to millions of people around the world. Mr Mandela was a leader who fought against the apartheid policies of South Africa and rendered an immense service to humanity. He changed the lives of millions of impoverished and oppressed people. A hero of the apartheid struggle, Mr Mandela spent 27 years in jail and then became South Africa's first democratically elected president.
The collective bereavement which has met his death across the world not only reflects the scale of his achievements but, indeed, the quality of the man. The African National Congress, in a statement released shortly after Mr Mandela's death, said:
The large African Boabab, who loved Africa as much as he loved South Africa, has fallen. Its trunk and seeds will nourish the earth for decades to come.
Mr Mandela's legacy and memory have been celebrated and his passing mourned by leaders around the world. The world leaders' speeches are replete with superlatives and sorrow. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, said just after Mr Mandela's passing that he now 'belongs to the ages'. President Obama said that Mandela:
… embodied the promise that human beings—and countries—can change for the better.
He paid homage to the influence that Mandela had on his own political career. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, a good friend of Nelson Mandela, described Mandela as being 'like a most precious diamond honed deep beneath the surface of the earth'.
For the many Australians who have paused to reflect on Mr Mandela's contributions, they can be proud that three successive prime ministers—Mr Whitlam, Mr Fraser and Mr Hawke—all played an important role in advocating for Mandela in his struggle. Mr Whitlam's government banned racially selected sporting teams from touring here, which of course meant that we did not go through the same difficulties that we have seen occur in other countries. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke played a pivotal role at the CHOGM meeting in the Bahamas in 1985, ensuring financial sanctions designed to choke the South African economy were adopted. It is also true to say that there was a different view about economic sanctions at the time. Mr Howard, the then opposition leader, opposed those sanctions. He told parliament in 1986:
The proposition that the white regime can be removed by the imposition of economic sanctions or that the imposition of sanctions will bring about a major change in the attitude of that regime, is a very questionable one.
I do believe that, on that occasion, the then leader of the coalition and, indeed, the coalition at that time were on the wrong side of history. The Australian Labor Party was one of the very few parties around the world to give practical assistance to Mr Mandela and the ANC in the 1994 general election.
When Mandela was released from prison, he visited Australia. Tens of thousands turned out to hear him speak. I had the good fortune to be in attendance at a gathering on 25 October 1990 at Melbourne Town Hall, where Nelson Mandela addressed unionists to thank them for their long effort to put political pressure on the regime of South Africa to have him released and—more importantly, as he would see it—to see a road to democracy for his country. I had the great honour to be in the audience when he was there. I just want to read out a couple of things that he said on that day as he addressed us:
It was the labour movement of this country in the early-50s which supported the dockworkers in this country who refused to unload South African ships. That was a decision which created a great deal of excitement, which gave the people of South Africa in their struggle, a lot of strength and a lot of hope.
It was difficult to understand how workers, thousands of miles from our shores, who did take the initiative the lead, among the workers of the world, to pledge their solidarity with the people of South Africa. The feeling that we are not alone, that we have millions of workers behind us, is a factor which has prepared us, notwithstanding the most brutal form of oppression which we've faced in our country. Throughout, since 1912, every South African Government has tried to destroy the African National Congress, or at least to cripple it. Not only have they failed in that resolve, but we have emerged to be the most powerful political organisation in the country, inside and outside of Parliament.
Clearly this was an emotional tribute by Mr Mandela and it showed his appreciation for the efforts of the union movement in this country, even before Labor governments agreed to impose sanctions on what was a horrific and undemocratic regime. As I say, I was fortunate to be there that day when Mr Mandela addressed us. He seemed, even at that moment—that moment of triumph, one would think—a man of humility, of modesty and of even temper. Amidst a very excitable crowd, he was in complete possession of the moment, and his dignity shone through. It is a great loss to South Africa, a great loss to this world. Let us hope that he will continue to inspire future generations.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:22): Richard Stengel, who worked with Nelson Mandela on his autobiography, told the story of when he was out walking one morning in the Transkei with Mr Mandela and they spoke about when he would be joining his ancestors. Mandela said:
Men come and go. I have come and I will go when my time comes.
He had an extraordinary life. The first time he shook the hand of a white man was when he went off to boarding school. He was born into a relatively privileged family by black South African standards. He grew to stand six foot two and he had a strong education. Nonetheless, when he was a young man in Johannesburg people spat on him in buses, shopkeepers turned him away and whites treated him as if he could not read or write. He thought to himself that, if that was how he was treated, how must it be for so many other black South Africans?
He was tried for his revolutionary activities for the ANC and sentenced. In the sentencing hearings, he spoke for four hours, finishing with the final statement:
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
His defence team urged him to take out the last sentence for risk of antagonising the judge and, as history has suggested, it may have been a close-run thing. Another member of the Johannesburg bench claims that he persuaded the trial judge, Quartus de Wet, to change his mind over a cup of tea in the judicial common room just before he returned to the court for sentencing: de Wet had been set on hanging.
The 27-year sentence saw Nelson Mandela become prisoner 466/64. He was held for 18 years in an eight-foot by seven-foot cell. It was a brutal sentence. He was a man who loved children but spent 27 years without holding a baby. As was reported, when he was being pursued by thousands of police, he secretly went to tuck in his son in his bed. When his son asked why he could not be with him every night, Mandela told him millions of other South African children needed him too. He lost his eldest son, Madiba Thembekile, in a car crash in 1969 and felt terrible guilt.
Mandela did not eschew violence entirely, as Gandhi did. He said, 'At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.' He never disowned the struggle and he was the founder of Umkhonto weSizwe, the Spear of the Nation, the military wing of the ANC. He regarded violence as a tactic not as a principle. As my media adviser, Toni Hassan, has pointed out, Mandela reached a point of taking the view that violence was a necessary strategy. But when the time came, he said to the ANC:
We must accept that responsibility for ending violence is not just the government's, the police's, the army's. It is also our responsibility.
This was most difficult when Chris Hani was killed by an assassin commissioned by the right-wing conservative party. It was Mandela who called aggrieved black South Africans not to take revenge when the country could have been plunged into bloodshed. He noted that a white woman of Afrikaner origin risked her life so that 'we may know and bring justice to the assassin'.
When Mandela was released from jail, almost a generation had passed. It was said that when he saw a television soundman waving a boom microphone at him he thought he was 'wielding a fancy assassination device'. But Mandela brought black and white South Africa together as the first president of a multiracial South Africa. In the moment when the country hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup, Mandela wore captain Francois Pienaar's No. 6 jersey on the field. The crowd loved it and loved him. They experienced a great moment of unity.
I am very pleased to see the bipartisanship with which Nelson Mandela has been acknowledged, but it is important to note that this was not always so. When people like Meredith Burgmann protested against white-only South African sporting teams, she was attacked by many Australian conservatives. Reading through the Hansard reveals John Howard opposing sporting sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s and Michael Cobb calling in 1990 for the resumption of sporting contact with South Africa. It also reveals Liberal members calling for the expulsion of the African National Congress from Australia and people like Senator Crichton-Browne saying:
When Mandela gets out of gaol he will be just in the ruck with all the rest. As long as he is in gaol he really is a symbol of all that the blacks represent. The sooner he gets out, the sooner, in my view, his influence will be considerably diminished.
One is so glad that those words have been consigned to the dustbin of history. There was a great moment in that speech when Senator Crichton-Browne said:
No one, in my view, has an absolute mortgage on morality.
And the late John Button said:
Certainly not you, Senator.
Mandela was a towering figure the likes of which we may not see again. His example to all of us was an extraordinary one. We are lucky to have shared this planet with him for that great run of 95 years he was on it. May he rest in peace.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (16:30): I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments this evening on behalf of the electorate of Gippsland regarding the death of Nelson Mandela. I am sure that the people of Gippsland would like me to extend their condolences to Nelson Mandela's family, his friends and his nation. Mandela spent much of his life standing up against the injustice of apartheid and, as we have already heard this evening, when that fight was won he inspired us again by his capacity to forgive and to reconcile his country. While the world may never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again, he has certainly inspired countless men and women throughout the world to live more courageous and more honest lives. Much has been written and said already about Mandela's legacy. There is little I can add, perhaps, beyond a simple thank you. Thank you to this great man, and thank you for a life well lived.
Naturally, over the past three days we have seen extensive media coverage—and I must commend the Australian media for the way it has covered the death of Nelson Mandela—and that coverage has been exhaustive but it has been very reflective as well. It has taken the time to delve into the intricacies of the issues that Mandela faced and the way he triumphed against great adversity. There has been grief, and there has been a sense of loss, of course, for his family and for the South African nation, as the world mourns a father, grandfather, a great-grandfather, a husband and simply an extraordinary individual. But there has also been a sense of celebration, to commemorate 95 years of an extraordinary life which, by any standards, has been well lived.
We have already heard in this place many moving tributes—from the Acting Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay; from the acting opposition leader; and from the member for Berowra and the member for Gorton—both of whom had the opportunity to meet Nelson Mandela. Even in his death, Mandela has been a great unifier; he has managed to unify this place—which in many ways would probably be one of his greatest miracles!
At his trial in 1964, Mandela spoke of his determination to achieve a free and harmonious society, saying:
It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
The courage contained in that statement alone is stark. Mandela remained true to those words during his long and arduous 27 years in prison. I believe his passing serves as a challenge to us all here in this place. His inspirational leadership can guide us as we make decisions and as we make the most of the opportunities that have been afforded to us as leaders of our own communities. I was particularly taken by the comments from Mandela's biographer, Richard Stengel, which appeared in The Weekend Australian, and I want to quote from them:
Deep in his bones was a basic sense of fairness: he simply could not abide injustice. If he, Mandela, the son of a chief, handsome and educated, could be treated as subhuman, what about the millions who had nothing like his advantages? "That is not right," he would say to me about something as mundane as a flight being cancelled or as large as a world leader's policies, but this phrase - that is not right - underlay everything he did.
To see something that is wrong and to take action to make it right must surely underpin our actions as members of this place.
As Mandela himself remarked, he was not a saint; he was just a man. Surely, he was an extraordinary man. But he was just a man. As was reported in The Age over the weekend, both Verne Harris, project leader at the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory, and Adam Roberts, a former correspondent from The Economist, say that Mandela had his flaws. He led an armed struggle which, by some definitions, could be seen as terrorism. Some have spoken about his stubbornness, his tendency to be aloof, and some other less attractive qualities. But in those failings, flaws or traits, we see Mandela as more of a complete human being. That should serve as further inspiration to us all and to our communities. He was just a man; he was not a saint. This man was able to achieve some remarkable things for his nation—but not through some mystical qualities. If one human being can achieve so much, why can't others rise to greatness? His life, including any faults or failings, whether they are perceived or otherwise, can inspire us all—men and women, black and white—to protect the legacy of Nelson Mandela and to reach within ourselves to find our better selves.
The resilience and the capacity to never give up even in the face of oppression are enduring qualities and values that can achieve change everywhere, including in our wonderful nation of Australia. To see something that is wrong and to take action is to take responsibility for that situation. To never give up, to remain determined in the face of adversity and to ultimately triumph are lessons that every generation can learn from. I believe they are the fundamental lessons that Nelson Mandela taught his nation and the world.
Many quotes from Mandela have appeared in the press over the last few days and they have been inspirational. I have taken perhaps greatest inspiration from two of them, and I would like to quote them now. One is: 'What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is the difference we have made to the lives of others.' And another is: 'There is no passion to be found playing small—in settling for a life that is less than the one that you are capable of living.' I was taken by those quotes because they are the types of messages that I try to convey to school students when I visit them in my electorate of Gippsland—when I meet them to discuss civics or citizenship or their future and the opportunities that might lie ahead for them. I must say that Mandela put them far more eloquently than I ever could, but the intent is the same.
Mandela demonstrated through his life the values and principles behind the words 'respect' and 'responsibility'. It is the same message that I like to give to students in my community when I meet with them. It is about respecting others and treating them in the same way you expect to be treated. As MPs, we have a long way to go in that regard. We can do better on the lesson of respect and the way we treat each other in this place. It is also about self-respect, and in his quote, 'There is no passion to be found playing small,' Mandela is saying to me: 'Let yourself achieve your absolute best with the skills and the abilities and the lessons you have learnt in life. You owe it to yourself to achieve whatever you possibly can in your life, and there is folly in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living.'
The lessons for all of us in Nelson Mandela's life are the values of hard work, of determination, of humility, of respect and of taking responsibility when you see something is wrong and trying to make it right. I know that taking responsibility these days is not always a popular course of action—it may not be so fashionable—and there always seems to be someone else to blame when we do make mistakes. And we do make mistakes as members in this place—we all make mistakes, some on a daily basis, some more regularly than that. When we make a mistake, we have to take responsibility. If we see a fault or if we make a mistake, we have to act in the best interest of our nation and try to correct it. They are the lessons that I have taken from Nelson Mandela's life and from reading more about his experiences over the past few days. In Mandela's example, it is to recognise what is not right and try to do something about it.
Finally, as I mentioned before, even in death Nelson Mandela has continued to achieve greatness. He has unified what is an often troubled and divided world. The speeches we have heard here today have demonstrated that unity, as members from both sides have recognised Mandela's contribution to the world. We have had tributes from world leaders, both black and white; from European leaders and Asian leaders; and from celebrities and mums and dads. We have seen people in the street crying and people in the streets celebrating. He has that enormous capacity to bring the world together to recognise a person who did in fact change the world. The lessons are there for us to see in his writings, in his speeches and, more importantly, in his deeds. As we in this place seek inspiration, and search for wisdom to see what is wrong and help make it right, I believe many of us would benefit from taking guidance from Mandela's struggles and his extraordinary achievements. My last words this evening are from Mandela himself: 'I learnt that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.' In years to come I think we will all do well to reflect on the words and the life of Nelson Mandela.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (16:39): This is a time to honour all of those who fought against the evils of the apartheid regime in South Africa, from the great man whom we commemorate today all the way down to the lowly record store owner who was portrayed so beautifully in the movie Searching for Sugar Man, which came out in the last year or two. It is a great movie that shows that one of the amazing things about the anti-apartheid movement was the way that it spread through the country and made change an irresistible thing. It was a remarkable movement and I pay tribute to it today.
It is with a great deal of sadness, but with limitless admiration, that I rise to join with colleagues from all parts of this parliament to pay tribute to a man and that movement, and to the causes of antiracism, reconciliation, democracy, progress and equality, which will live on well beyond the passing of Nelson Mandela. For some people those are just words or slogans. For a lot of the leaders on that continent, unfortunately, they were easily traded away for power, but for Nelson Mandela they were causes for which, as other speakers have mentioned and he repeatedly said, he was prepared to die.
To his clan, his people and statesmen such as Bill Clinton, whom he befriended, he was known as Madiba, his clan name. That is the name they have been chanting in South African streets and around the world since the awful news broke late last week.
He once said, 'The time is always ripe to do right.' It is right to mark the extraordinary life of an extraordinary man who lived for 95 years but whose impact will be felt forever. His was a life forged in the fires of racism and imprisonment during the time of injustice imposed by South African apartheid, by the minority white population, on the majority black population.
He once wrote to his second wife, Winnie, 'Difficulties break some men but make others.' There can be no better example of that than Mandela's own life and struggle on behalf of all South Africans, but especially the poor, the oppressed and the marginalised.
He spoke simply but with immense power multiplied by his humility. I mark something that the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, which is the paradox that, the more humble Nelson Mandela got, the greater he became. I thought that was an excellent point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister. How Nelson Mandela maintained such amazing dignity in the face of such trials is beyond explanation. To spend more than a quarter of a very long life in prison and emerge like he did, with his optimism and vision, that straight back and a deep, reflective voice was incredible.
As they did for my colleagues who have spoken already, his struggles inspired me and helped instil in me a passion for tolerance and justice achieved through political action. In that sense he was like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and FDR but with one important difference: he was the only one of those who lived and worked in my time. One of my earliest political memories is from grade 7, when Nelson Mandela was released from jail and there was the amazing scene where he was walking along with a big crowd behind him. One of the things that made me start to think that I was from this side of politics was that a social studies teacher explained to me that the Left in Australia was siding with Nelson Mandela, whereas the Right had not always sided with him and had indeed at times sided with his opponents.
Mandela showed us that inspired and courageous political leadership could be contemporary and not just historical. In the mid-90s his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom became the first political book I read. I remember setting the alarm early so that I could plough through as much of it as I could before school. I suspect this week it might become the most re-read book in the world—that is a great thing. I also mark what the previous speaker and also my colleague the member for Canberra said about the Richard Stengel book. Stengel collaborated with Mandela on Long Walk to Freedom and more recently wrote his own book, which laid out 15 lessons from Mandela's life, taken from the thousands of hours they spent together talking about life and leadership while they worked on the first book. Stengel did us a tremendous service by showing Mandela, warts and all: a hero but also a human.
Our greatest debt to Stengel is for familiarising us with the African term Ubuntu. In an introduction to Stengel's book Mandela describes Ubuntu as the profound sense that we are human only through the humanity of others; that if we are to accomplish anything in this world it will be due in equal measure to the work and achievements of others. What a tremendous sentiment that is.
This humility and selflessness is embodied by the man we pay tribute to now, the man who wrote in a famous essay that 'to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others' and who later said in a letter to his famous ally Walter Sisulu:
What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead.
So the Australian parliament unites to thank and honour Madiba today. There is surely no better way to mark his passing than with his own words on mortality:
Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for the eternity.
He will be remembered for eternity as well.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (16:45): Many of my colleagues have already spoken on the condolence motion before the House, and I would like to associate myself with the words and the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister in particular. Today I would like to pay my respects on the passing of one of the world's greatest leaders, Nelson Mandela, and to offer the condolences of the people of McPherson. Our thoughts are with his wife, his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren and the entire family, as well as his friends and colleagues, those who struggled alongside him.
Nelson Mandela's legacy is more than just ending apartheid and greater than bringing forth a new era for South Africa. Nelson Mandela's legacy is of bringing change and humanity to a nation and to the world and bringing about change peacefully. As he famously said in his 1964 address at the opening of the defence case in the Rivonia trial:
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realised.
People around the world this week will be looking at all that Nelson Mandela achieved in his lifetime, and, although his achievements were great, we should also be looking to the future, learning from all that he did and expanding to create a better world. Nelson Mandela believed in the power of humanity, and we should too. Sitting in this parliament are a group of diverse people with diverse backgrounds and ideals, but what we all have in common is the desire to create a better Australia and a better world. I think we can all look to Nelson Mandela as an inspiration to come together and to do just that.
Most people believe that one person cannot make a difference, but Nelson Mandela went to show us that it is possible. One person can make a change that affects the lives of millions of people around the world. His actions have inspired many and will continue to inspire people into the future. He has taught us to respond to injustice and stand up for the equality of all people. The world has lost a great man and a great leader, but his memory will live on through his work and those that work in his vision. May he rest in peace.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (16:48): I am very proud to be able to join colleagues in paying tribute to a true giant of humanity, Nelson Mandela. Mandela's story is well known all around the world: the freedom fighter against the apartheid regime who became the most famous prisoner in the world and who subsequently was able to unite his nation as the first democratically elected President of South Africa.
Over the last few days, so many people have recognised his enormous and total commitment to reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. A shining example of this was his meeting with Percy Yutar upon his election as President. Yutar had been the state prosecutor at the trial which resulted in Mandela's 27-year imprisonment and had demanded during that trial the death penalty for Mandela and his comrades, and yet here was the newly elected President not exerting retribution or punishment but meeting the gentleman who had sent him to prison.
As a Labor member of parliament I am very proud that the Australian Labor Party was one of the few political parties that provided assistance to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the first democratic election in South Africa, in 1994. This assistance had a broader base than just the parliamentary Labor Party; the combined trade union movement was also involved. I remember working in a building in Granville which had framed in its foyer a reproduction—I hope it was a reproduction—of a ballot paper, with a note of thanks from the ANC written on it, from the first democratic election in 1994.
I pay tribute to the remarks of people from across the chamber. The passing of Mandela is the passing of a giant who unites everyone, and I think many countries can learn from his approach to power. I was very interested in the comments from the member for Berowra, the Chief Government Whip, on the contrast between South Africa and other countries in its region, and I think that is very important. Being from an Irish background, I know that Northern Ireland is also dealing with reconciliation. So it is a good time to pause and reflect on the passing of a true giant.
It is also important at this stage to recognise the efforts of people in Australia who supported Nelson's activities and those of the ANC in general. It is widely acknowledged that economic sanctions imposed by the international community, led in part by Australia, played a significant role in ending apartheid. Australians should be very proud of the role we played and grateful that we were led by successive prime ministers who were vocal advocates of ending apartheid. History shows that Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating were right. I pay tribute in particular to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser for his efforts in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which were continued by Prime Minister Hawke.
Of course, not all former leaders can lay claim to having taken part in such efforts. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, former president of the United States Ronald Reagan and Australia's very own former Prime Minister John Howard were all opposed to Australia's efforts to end apartheid in various forms. Prime Minister Howard is on the record as having opposed economic and sporting sanctions. In fact, in 1975, Prime Minister Howard rose in parliament to oppose the Whitlam Labor government's prevention of the Australian cricket team from touring South Africa. His attempt to trivialise apartheid by suggesting that Australia should only compete with countries whose sporting teams were democratically selected was shameful. Apartheid was not a joke; when John Howard made his suggestion, Mandela had been in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison for 11 years whilst the black South African population was being systemically denied its human rights.
I raise this point because, when we reflect on the passing of a giant—a statesman who was certainly on the highest tier of statespeople—we should not take it as an opportunity to rewrite history. We should acknowledge Mandela's contributions and the circumstances surrounding them. I also note that former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher labelled the ANC a terrorist organisation and vehemently opposed efforts by Commonwealth nations to end apartheid and that president Reagan used his presidential powers to veto the United States' efforts to end apartheid. We are here acknowledging the passing of a giant who was convicted of terrorism and condemned by various governments around the world in the past, and we remember Mandela as a truly unique individual whose unwavering commitment to social justice and human rights leaves a legacy which will be held up as an example for generations to come. However, in remembering him we must also remember that some share a shameful legacy of opposing efforts to end apartheid.
As a keen rugby follower I acknowledge Mandela's support of the South African national rugby team, the Springboks—once a symbol of white domination and apartheid—in the 1995 Rugby World Cup. His embrace of the Springboks is another shining example of his commitment to reconciliation. The captain of the 1995 World Cup winning team, Francois Pienaar, said over the weekend that in post-apartheid South Africa:
… where there was real tension, he gave us all hope. There will never be another like him.
I agree with him.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:54): I humbly rise to offer my condolences to the people of South Africa on the death of former South African President Nelson Mandela. The world has lost a bastion of humanity with the passing of Nelson Mandela. He leaves behind a nation in mourning. They have lost the man who personified the heart and soul of South Africa—a beacon of humanity, forgiveness and national pride.
The people of the world have also lost one of their greatest. Nelson Mandela created a benchmark for the entire world in how to bring about peaceful conflict resolution. Watching Mandela and FW de Klerk standing side by side to receive the Nobel Peace Prize is one of the great moments in history. It was a scene many thought was not possible. However, as Mr Mandela himself said, 'It always seems impossible until its done.'
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:5 6 to 17:13
Ms GAMBARO: Nelson Mandela leaves behind a legacy that is not that of a saint and he would not want to be remembered that way. He went to prison in 1962 as an angry radical revolutionary. When he emerged from prison nearly 30 years later, in 1990, at 72 years of age and with the whole world watching, nobody really knew what to expect. If he was bitter he was not showing it. He seemed happy and at peace. This is a man who had a third of his life stolen from him. This is a man who had been spat on in the street and refused service in stores for the colour of his skin.
Yet, when he emerged from prison, he emerged as a man of peace and forgiveness. It was this journey that gave Nelson Mandela the authority to stand in front of his people as their leader and inspire them to free themselves from anger and to forgive their oppressors. He once told former US President Bill Clinton, 'You simply cannot be free without forgiveness.' He himself could not truly be a free man if he held on to his anger. Furthermore, South Africa as nation would never be able to move ahead as a peaceful democracy without its citizens forgiving the sins of the past.
This is how Nelson Mandela became the heart and soul of a multiracial, modern, democratic South Africa. And this is how, in 1994, just four years after he was released from prison, he became the South African President with a 62 per cent majority. Who can forget those long, snaking lines as millions queued in the sun for hours to vote in South Africa's first multiracial elections?
While Mr Mandela only served one term as President of South Africa, it was during this time that he laid a road map for a modern South Africa. In his inaugural speech he said:
We have, at last, achieved our political emancipation. We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discrimination.
We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity - a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.
He did not just speak these words; he lived them.
In a well-chosen gesture of forgiveness, Nelson Mandela appeared wearing South African colours at the Rugby World Cup Final in Johannesburg to congratulate the victorious home team, bringing the overwhelmingly white crowd of 63,000 to its feet chanting his name. Nelson Mandela used rugby to bring a nation together. He needed to find something that all South Africans could share so they could see there was something in which such a bitterly divided and rawly hurt nation could come together.
As a fellow rugby-loving nation, Australia will never forget that moment in 1995 when Mandela appeared wearing a Springbok rugby jersey with the number 6 on his back. The No. 6 jersey was that of South African captain on the day, Francois Pienaar, an Afrikaaner with whom he had become close friends. Pienaar said it was an amazing feeling when Mandela walked into the Springbok dressing room wearing his number to wish them good luck. To this day, television footage of that spectacle brings a tear to the eye of the toughest Australian rugby fan and rugby fans all around the world.
Nelson Mandela knew exactly what he was doing that day. It was a bold and risky decision, but he knew that it sent an important message to his people. As Mr Mandela was subsequently to say in a speech about that day:
Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.
Even after his retirement, Mr Mandela continued to work against social injustice, poverty and oppression. In fact, he was working so hard in his retirement he famously had to retire from his retirement.
He became an outspoken advocate against HIV/AIDS, speaking out about the loss of his son in 2005, Makgatho Mandela who had died of an AIDS-related illness at the age of 54. This was a significant moment in Nelson's Mandela's fight against HIV/AIDS. At the time Mr Mandela said:
Let us give publicity to HIV/AIDS and not hide it, because the only way to make it appear like a normal illness like TB, like cancer, is always to come out and to say somebody has died because of HIV/AIDS—and people will stop regarding it as something extraordinary.
Despite his achievements, one can never forget that Mandela was in his heart a family man who adored his children and sacrificed so much. He was a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. One cannot imagine the enormous pain his family must have endured throughout those years. Family spokesperson Temba Matanzima said in a recent statement about Mr Mandela's death that the pillar of their family was gone, just as he was during the 27 painful years of his imprisonment.
Nelson Mandela's family has lost their pillar, the South African nation has lost their father and the world has lost a great man. Nelson Mandela will forever be in the hearts and minds of the world and will forever be an inspiration to those who are fighting against oppression, poverty and racism. As I said at the outset, the world has lost a bastion of humanity with the passing of Nelson Mandela. It is our responsibility now to continue his legacy.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (17:20): I join with other members here today in expressing my condolences and those of the people of Fremantle on the passing of Nelson Mandela, a man who embodied through great suffering the greatest human qualities; a man who showed unwavering strength of purpose in the service of moral and humanitarian principle; a man who displayed courage and endurance—quite unbelievable endurance—in the face of violence and oppression; a simple, noble man who lived by the values of leadership, camaraderie, humility, forgiveness and love.
I am sure there has not been another death felt around the world like the passing of Nelson Mandela. His departure leaves hundreds of millions of people in nations across the globe feeling his loss but feeling at the same time enormous gratitude for what he gave and enormous sadness at this subtraction from the world of wisdom, goodness and the will for peace. Those of us in Australia who celebrate the life of Nelson Mandela and who mourn his death can imagine what it must be like for his nation, South Africa, for his family and for his friends. We extend our condolences to them at this time.
The West Australian newspaper said it well in its editorial on the weekend when it stated that Mandela's achievements:
… rank him alongside Mahatma Gandhi in the pantheon of statesman who have led their nations through turbulent times and whose towering moral authority helped to avoid bloodshed on a terrifying scale.
There are two precepts of Mahatma Gandhi's that come to mind when one reflects on the life of Nelson Mandela. The first is: 'Be the change that you want to see in the world.' The second is: 'Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.'
There is no better example of the power of those ideas than in the life of Nelson Mandela. He had more than enough reason to give up his personal struggle to be and bring about the change that he knew was required in South Africa, and he had 27 years of incarceration and mistreatment in which to give himself up to the claims of hate and bitterness. Yet his commitment to justice did not falter and his capacity to forgive and to love was not overcome.
It is hard to grasp and hold the full weight of those 27 years in prison. All I can do is pick out some of the details that drive home to me the kind of suffering he experienced: the fact that when first imprisoned he was allowed one visit and one letter every six months; the fact that when his mother and then his first-born son died—in 1968 and 1969 respectively—he was not allowed to attend either funeral; the fact that his daughters were not able to visit him until 1975, 11 years after he was first taken to Robben Island; the fact that when he worked in the prison's lime quarry he was forbidden from wearing sunglasses and as a result suffered permanent eye damage. All these cruelties, punishments, denials of freedom—and many, many more—took place across a length of time that is itself hard to fathom, yet Nelson Mandela emerged from prison to both lead and heal his nation. I believe the best way of honouring a great soul like Mandela is to recognise that the way he lived and the principles he lived by are available to everyone—and, indeed, that they are exemplified, in small and large ways, by many people.
There was a time, when Mandela was beginning his journey, that he was hardly known in South Africa, let alone in the wider world. There was a time when people in Australia second-guessed the need to oppose apartheid and failed to support those in our community who did recognise and share the fight against that evil. There are forms of racial injustice now—including in this country—that require more of us to make a greater effort to say, 'That is not right', as Mandela said, and to do something about it.
As the world honours and celebrates the life and achievements of Nelson Mandela, let us not fall into the historical fiction that would regard the triumph of his cause as inevitable. It took the outside world too long to act in concert against the apartheid regime and there have been in the recent past, and there are even now, instances of tyranny and systemic inequality that the world should not ignore but does. The last thing we should do in remembering Mandela is to put his example on a pedestal where no-one can reach it. The first thing we should do is to look around us a little more keenly to see those among us who are seeking to deliver justice, to promote peace and equality and to ensure the observance of human rights for all our fellow men and women.
I love the fact that Mandela's tribal name, Rolihlahla, means troublemaker. In the pursuit of freedom and equality and in the face of structured and entrenched oppression, you need to be prepared to make a certain amount of trouble; to be a firebrand in the cause of change. Nelson Mandela lived nearly a century and in his 95 years he came to represent all that was possible and good in people, in us. That will be his legacy. Through the century that has passed, 100 years of substantial horror and darkness as well as progress, Mandela achieved the miracle of transforming an entire nation from a deeply racist, cruel and oppressive past to a free and democratic future through reconciliation without significant bloodshed. His death is a great loss but his life and his example have been the greatest gift. We will remember him and be inspired by him, and shape our conduct by the light of his leadership, humility and love.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (17:26): There are few people who inspire us to the level that Nelson Mandela has done. The contribution that an individual makes to society and to the global community in which we all live is something he will be remembered for, but also the circumstances that built his character as a man, a leader and an individual. Last week the world community lost one of its greatest leaders, a pioneer and an advocate for peace, unity, equality and peer recognition. The death of Nelson Mandela, South Africa's President from 1994 to 1999 has struck a chord with individuals and leaders from all walks of life. In death as in life, Mandela commands the respect of the world stage.
Fifty-nine world leaders are making the trek to South Africa to pay their respects to the man, and to the unity and forgiveness that was his life's work. Occasionally in life the world gives birth to a great leader. Mandela was one of those few exceptional men who rose above the fray to transition from countryman to world elder, a unifying figure not only for South Africans but for many throughout the world. Mandela is best known for his work as a civil rights activist, a world leader and an author.
Mandela stands to be known as one of the world's most pre-eminent symbols of peace. In 1993, Mandela was jointly awarded the Nobel peace prize with the then South African President Fredrik Willem de Klerk for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime and for laying the foundation of a new democratic South Africa. In 1942, Mandela joined the African National Congress and for 20 years directed a campaign of peaceful nonviolent defiance against the South African government and its racist policies.
Mandela like Gandhi had a unique and extraordinary capacity to forgive. I am always struck by the way both men used peace and unity. They used unity in a passive sense by bringing to the fore their message in respect of seeking freedom for the nations of their people and at the same time building an ethos of forgiveness and directing people on a journey towards unity for their nations. It is a unique quality that transcends the politics and the strengths of those individuals to make a difference in blending together the vision for their nations. The way they went about that is a character of strength and something I admire. I often use their words when I deliver my addresses because they are pertinent to the way they delivered their message. They are salient and go to the crux of what their society was and what their vision was for all of those around them, the people of their nations.
In spite of the terrible atrocities levelled against him, he was able to channel his experiences into a strategy to bring together all men and women in South Africa. As Mandela was known to say, 'Everyone can rise above their circumstances and achieve success if they are dedicated to and passionate about what they do.' There were few who were as passionate as Mandela to achieve peace and freedom in South Africa. Mandela saw his life's objective as achieving unity and quality for all South Africans. He was known to say:
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination.
I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realised. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Not once did Mandela's vision for his nation falter, which is a remarkable achievement for any world leader. In total, Mandela spent 27 years in incarceration for his political offences. He was charged due to his efforts to end apartheid, particularly because of his involvement with the African National Congress. Despite the incredible hate that was thrust upon him during these years and the perceived insurmountable challenges in pursuing peace in South Africa, Mandela chose to pursue peace and reconciliation. We remember the image of him walking free into a country that had once jailed him and his first speech when he returned home. It was not about bitterness, it was not about retribution, it was not about revenge; it was about the fact that he wanted to unify a country that could become a great nation, in which people of differing opinions could walk together and deliver a future that augured well for the generations to come.
Mandela was empowered by the very process that sought to disempower him and his efforts towards reconciliation. He said after his release:
If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.
He certainly achieved that. The approach towards partnership was the one that marked Mandela's presidency. His legacy and key objective was national reconciliation. He retained his integrity throughout the trials and tribulations he faced, and he did not compromise his beliefs in order to make the journey easier.
Nelson Mandela's achievements are considered all the more remarkable in the light of his previous history. When he was just nine years old his father lost his life to lung cancer, initiating a time of great change for him. Nelson Mandela's extraordinary background began long before he was incarcerated. Mandela was the first in his family to attend school and in spite of a difficult childhood he made the most of his opportunities. Mandela was given the opportunity to study at the Wesleyan mission school, the Clarkebury Boarding Institute, and the Wesleyan college where he solidified his understanding that success was achieved through hard work. Later Mandela studied at the University of Fort Hare, preparing for a career in the civil service as a clerk. After working in law firms and passing exams to become a qualified attorney at law, Mandela, together with his university peer and friend Oliver Tambo, opened the first solely African-run law firm in South Africa, where he provided legal advice and support to those who could not afford to access the legal systems of South Africa. In an interview this morning the grandson of his friend spoke openly of the friendship that the two had and the work that they did together to bring about the changes required to move from an oppressive regime to the Africa we see today.
The impact of education on Mandela's own life is no doubt where his passion for education came from. Mandela believed that education was 'the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world'—and in fact to change the society in which you live. He credited much of what was achieved in South Africa and elsewhere around the world to education. Nelson Mandela identified that the key to all change was education. It unlocks our ability to achieve our destiny and effect lasting differences. It is a vehicle through which he was able to promote peace and unity.
Nelson Mandela did not stop with achieving democracy in South Africa. Instead, he used his experience to urge other nations to overcome conflict and internal destruction through reconciliation, democracy and diplomacy. One of Nelson Mandela's greatest achievements came after his retirement from South African politics. He used his position to bring together world leaders to effect lasting change across Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Nelson Mandela convened a group appropriately titled The Elders, which included such individuals as Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan, Li Zhaoxing and Mohammed Younis. The Elders promoted peace and women's equality as well as developing initiatives to end human rights atrocities and to address the humanitarian crises that existed in various places in the world.
I am proud that leaders of both sides of Australian politics will be showing their respect by attending memorial services for Nelson Mandela. The ideological and symbolic change that Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa is a contemporary issue that we in Australia are still reconciling. It is an issue on which we look to all sides of politics to unify in order to achieve this change. As Nelson Mandela himself said:
Success in politics demands that you must take your people into confidence about your views and state them very clearly, very politely, very calmly, but nevertheless state them openly.
These same principles are the ones that are needed in our own journey towards reconciliation. Just as Mandela took South Africans into his confidence to share his vision, so too must we as Australian leaders take all Australians into our confidence and state our vision for a united Australia. We members of the Australian parliament must bring all Australians together on a journey to better understand each other. Only by taking this journey together will we be able to achieve lasting reconciliation for Australia.
In closing, I will use Nelson Mandela's own words to encourage us in Australia's journey towards unity:
Our march to freedom is irreversible. We must not allow our fear to stand in the way.
May we never let our fear stand in the way of achieving a stronger, more united Australia. Let us hope that the vision that has been imparted to us not only by him but by leaders within Australia becomes a basis from which we take the next stage of the journey that we have, that we achieve a country of greatness and of unity—a country in which all are part of the vision for the country but where we also stand as equals in the way we integrate and accept each other's ideas. Let us hope to show the passion for the future as Mandela did for Africa, as he did for the global community, for which he gained respect and acknowledgement for having the forgiveness to forge a way where all walk as equals.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (17:38): Last Friday, the world learned that Nelson Mandela had died at 95. Mandela was a towering figure of the 21st century. He transformed a resistance movement into a force for national liberation and was a leader in the true sense of the word. He served over 27 years in Robben Island prison for trying to effect multiracial political change in South Africa. Over those long years of incarceration, he became known as the father of the nation, yet his children grew up without their father. Despite a prison term that would have broken most men, Nelson Mandela did not give up on his dream. He brought to an end white minority rule in South Africa by becoming the first black, democratically elected president in 1994. When he stood in front of the Union Buildings in Pretoria 19 years ago to be sworn in, he embodied the hope of the nation.
Apartheid had been defeated, but his greatest gift to South Africa was to ensure that the sins of apartheid were dealt with through truth and reconciliation and not revenge. A wave of unforeseen optimism spread across the country and across the world. Mandela served in office for five years, but the international acclaim for his activism resonated for much longer than that. He has received more than 250 honours throughout his life, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, shared with FW de Klerk. As some have pointed out since his passing, Mandela was not a saint. He was a human and he had his flaws. That said, South Africa still faces many challenges but we cannot deny that it is a better place because of him.
I had the great honour of meeting Nelson Mandela briefly. It was 1990, just months after he had been released from prison. He came to Australia to thank our government and the community organisations that had supported the anti-apartheid movement throughout its years of struggle. I had been very active in the group on the south coast. In those years the anti-apartheid cause was not always bipartisan. The sanctions movement was very controversial. There existed apologists who gained comfort at high levels throughout the country. I am pleased to say that the south coast branch was a very strong movement that gained support, financial, moral and otherwise, from trade unions, a good friend and colleague Terry Fox and the former member for Throsby, Colin Hollis. It was a great honour to meet a great man, however brief the encounter was. I am very sad, as I am sure all members of this place are, to learn of his passing. The world is a better place for the time he spent with us. Vale, Nelson Mandela.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (17:42): I can only echo the remarks that have been made by other members. Nelson Mandela was a great individual. He will be remembered as one of the great individuals of the 20th century, someone who fought for civil rights in the same way that Gandhi and Martin Luther King did. It seems incredible, but when Nelson Mandela was released in 1990 there had been no images of him for 20 years. The photos used for stamps were taken from his trial in the 1960s. Younger people might not even remember the period when South African sporting teams did not compete internationally for 20 years. A number of Australian cricketers went on rebel tours of South Africa, but, under the Gleneagles Agreement, for 20 years South Africa was an international pariah in the sporting world.
I had the opportunity to work in South Africa in late 1989 and early 1990. I worked in a hospital in KwaZulu, then a non-independent homeland. It was an interesting time. In 1989 the previous president of South Africa, Mr Botha, had been replaced by FW de Klerk, the Berlin Wall had come down and some members of the ANC had been released but not Mandela. It was obvious that the system of apartheid was unsustainable and that South Africa had really been held back by the way that it had had sanctions imposed on it by countries around the world. Although many elements of apartheid were by then illegal, I do remember being in the Northern Transvaal and seeing the signs in banks saying 'Europeans only' at a time when that was no longer allowed. I remember staying with a family on 2 February 1990 when the news came that President de Klerk had decided to remove the remaining pillars of apartheid by unbanning the ANC. He subsequently released Nelson Mandela. This was something that this family welcomed but it took their breath away; they had not expected it so soon.
I also distinctly remember when Mandela became president in April 1994. I heard his acceptance speech on the ABC; it was absolutely electrifying. I am pretty sure that I was late for work that day; I just stopped the car and listened to Mandela's acceptance speech. When you consider how South Africa could have gone, and when you compare the path that South Africa has taken with that of Zimbabwe, you see how important Mandela's approach has been—the way he was able to forgive but not forget, the enormous grace he showed, and the way he was always prepared to build a bridge with people who had previously been violently opposed to him.
In closing I wanted to repeat the words he gave almost 50 years ago in his Rivonia trial speech: 'I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.' They were his words; they were words he always lived by. The world and South Africa are better places for him.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (17:47): For me, it was not what put Mandela in jail or the man he was before he was arrested and it was not the 27 years he spent in jail. It wasn't the Special AKA singing Free Nelson Mandela; it wasn't Jim Kerr and the Simple Minds singing about Mandela Day; and it wasn't even Steven Van Zandt from the E Street Band singing 'I ain't gonna play Sun City' in defiance of the apartheid regime. It was not how abhorrent apartheid was. It was not the Springboks tours—I am old enough to remember them—and the state of emergency in Brisbane declared by Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He had the field ringed by police so that the game could go on. The students who protested at the time by blowing whistles and trying to get onto the field—I would have been nine or 10 at the time and they were a bunch of long-hairs creating trouble when it was just a game of football. It was far more than that. I will note that the Vice-Chancellor of Queensland University at the time was none other than Sir Zelman Cowen. If you want to talk about truly great men of peace, Sir Zelman Cowen was one of the best of them.
For me it was all about how Mandela conducted himself from the moment he was released from Robben Island Prison after 27 years. He could have been bitter. He could have gone all out for payback and we would have forgiven him. He could have evened up old scores, but he chose not to. He set to work with FW de Klerk—the forgotten man in this story, because without him it would not have happened—to dismantle apartheid. I heard a quote from FW de Klerk just recently where he said that both men walked out of their first meeting saying, 'There's a man I can deal with; there's a man I can work with.' So it was both men's ability—Mandela's and de Klerk's—to get there and say, 'We can end this; we can do the right thing.'
So they built a new nation, they got a new anthem and they got a new flag. And the symbolism of the flag, being divergent lines coming together and forging one way ahead, is I think a truly amazing thing—to the point where people, not too far from now, will not even remember the old South African flag and what it stood for and what was on it. More than all that—more than everything—was that he forgave. And that, for me, is just the most amazing thing: after what they had done to him, he was able to forgive.
A division having been called in the House—
Proceedings suspended from 17:5 1 to 18:05
Mr EWEN JONES: As I was saying before the suspension, more than anything, Nelson Mandela forgave. The ability to forgive when every fibre of your being is screaming for retribution is what truly sets Nelson Mandela apart from all other people. I still hold grudges from primary school and I can walk you through them. I still hold grudges from my first marriage. But the ability to get over it, to see the bigger picture, to be able to stand back and see what is best for other people—that is what truly sets Nelson Mandela apart.
The normal thing to do these days when someone dies is to put something up on Facebook. When Nelson Mandela died, some people came back and said that he was flawed and said some negative things about him. This may come as a surprise to my wife, but no man is not flawed—not even Ghandi. Every man is flawed. Some say South Africa is a mess and that it faces huge challenges. That is true on so many levels. But, equally, to fix all the problems of South Africa is not one man's job—and certainly not Nelson Mandela's job. To right every wrong, to fix every problem, is not his role. Racism still exists—everywhere. Sadly, it probably always will. But his job is complete. His job was to forge a new nation, an inclusive nation.
No image instils the message—and other speakers have spoken about this—better than the one from the 1995 World Cup. Mandela got out of prison in 1990. Australia won the 1991 Rugby World Cup. In 1992 we played the Springboks in South Africa and we beat them. In 1993, they came to Australia. They had a new national anthem and the singing of the previous national song, Die Stem, was forbidden. I was sitting in the northern stand at Ballymore when Australia played the Springboks in 1993. We were sitting right next to a big group of South African tourists and they stood as one and sang Die Stem that day. So to see Nelson Mandela, at the 1995 Rugby World Cup, walk out with what was to many South Africans the symbol of apartheid—the green Springbok jersey with its gold collar and the jumping springbok on the breast—and embrace the team, embrace the nation, was truly a great moment for absolutely everyone. It was the moment that crystallised in everyone's mind that this was one nation. That was the last bastion of apartheid and they were very proud.
They are now one nation. They are what they want to be as one nation. They have a lot of problems to fix up, as do we all. Vale, Nelson Mandela, a truly great man.
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (18:08): Nelson Mandela—what do you say? So much has already been said over recent days. This is a man whose life, over some 95 years, has traversed some of the great challenges of his country and his continent—and, in fact, the world. He faced the struggles over apartheid and the struggles, as part of that, relating to his incarceration for some 27 years. On from that, he dealt with the challenges involved in the establishment of a democratic nation, a nation that has had a very troubled history with respect to race and, with that, violence and oppression. Mandela, it was said, would say that he was an ordinary man, a simple man. In fact it is clear that he faced, as an ordinary and simple man, many complex challenges. He dealt with those challenges in a way that was, frankly, a wonder to many in the world.
Those who have been jailed, those who have been tortured, those who have been brutalised, often as a result become changed by those circumstances. Often they become in some ways tainted by their experience. In fact, it is completely understandable how they will react in a manner that is in itself often quite brutal. One of Mandela's greatest achievements was his capacity to forgive, to understand and to move beyond that oppression and provide an example for all the world with respect to how to deal with those circumstances.
As the first black president of the new democratic nation of South Africa he faced enormous challenges, challenges in relation to poverty, exploitation, race and the aftermath of the power structures that were apartheid. He would have admitted that he was not always able to meet those challenges with solutions, but he worked hard over his five years as President to move his country forward to help establish it as a free nation and as a nation where all citizens have the opportunity and the capacity and the ability to live a decent life.
The work that he did over that time is still a work in progress. I have always thought that probably one of the greatest tragedies regarding Nelson Mandela is that if only he had been released 10 or more years earlier and been in a situation where he could have become President at a younger age, his potential to have influenced modern South Africa would have been even greater.
Often described as a man of peace, there is no doubt that he embraced peaceful means; there is also no doubt that, when he felt it was necessary, as a last resort, he was prepared to take a more violent path. It was never his first choice. It was his last resort. But it was something that he was prepared to do, and I think that is something that needs to be understood.
In terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and how it has been described by others—he embraced white South Africa in the context of things like the Rugby World Cup. In terms of his statements to many of those who had been a part of his oppression—that he could forgive and that they had to move forward together—it showed what a great man he was. He also recognised and acknowledged always that he was not alone in what he did, that in fact he was part of a movement and that many in that movement were less famous and less celebrated, but had suffered and given much also to the cause.
I visited Robben Island several years ago, just before I attended a delegation of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in Africa. I managed to get there a couple of days early, so I went to Robben Island. I saw his cell. I have been to the quarry where he worked. I met with former prisoners who were working there as guides and who told us what happened with guards—about the circumstances the prisoners faced—and they gave us a bit of their personal experience about what it was like to be there at that time. There was a tremendous sense of community amongst them in terms of what they talked about and a tremendous sense of a shared experience that they saw as part of what they had suffered but also what they had to move beyond. That capacity to inspire across many of compatriots, and, through that, across the entire South African community, is another significant aspect of Nelson Mandela's achievement over the years.
His experience was horrific, but his achievements as a result should be celebrated and remembered. The challenge for modern South Africa is to build on that legacy. It is a big challenge. It is a challenge for those who were his compatriots and remain in the ANC, but also within the broader South African community. I hope and I pray that the example of Nelson Mandela in all the good things that he came to represent, for the need to move South Africa forward as a great nation of the world but also for the African continent, is something that those in South Africa will remember and will learn from for the future. I believe that is this man's legacy and I believe that it is a legacy that all should live to honour and to represent in future as being the way forward for Africa.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (18:15): On behalf of the people of Lyons it is indeed a great honour to stand here to recognise a true giant of the 20th century. Notwithstanding that some will struggle to understand why I chose to speak on this motion, he was for much of his life a controversial figure. Like all of us, he had his failings but in some way I think that all, including his detractors, could recognise the legacy that he finally left South Africa and perhaps the world with. There but for the grace of God go I, I suspect. Until you have walked in his shoes, it might be hard to judge. Nelson Mandela said:
If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.
It is a philosophy that this man lived and breathed from the time of his imprisonment through a long and distinguished public life following his release. It is the kind of philosophy that shaped him as a beacon for freedom in our time.
The world mourns a great leader of his people in Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary, a politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 until 1999. Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was one of our country's first leaders to meet Mr Mandela. Mr Mandela was still in prison at Pollsmoor in Cape Town, to where he had been moved. It was 1986 and Mr Mandela, aged 67, was 23 years into what would be 27 years spent in jail. Former Prime Minister Mr Fraser visited him as then chairman of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group which was charged to help South Africa to speed up the end of apartheid. As Stuart Rintoul said in The Australian newspaper at the weekend, prison 'authorities … had sent a tailor to fit him out for a pinstripe suit so he would not have to meet the former Australian prime minister in his old prison clothes'. He met Mr Fraser with a question, 'Tell me, Mr Fraser, is Donald Bradman still alive?' Mr Fraser told Rintoul that he and Mr Mandela met in the prison grounds, but even there he had a natural authority and presence. It also pleased him greatly to find out that Don Bradman was indeed still alive!
I join millions of people across the world who mourn the passing of Nelson Mandela. He will be remembered as a humble man who showed us the best of the human spirit and who fought all his life against injustice not only in his own country but internationally. His speech at the Rivonia trial in 1964 before he went to prison gave the world the first inkling that this was a man who would stand alongside India's Mahatma Gandhi as one of the generation's great leaders for peace. His words could be the mantra for those who strive for a free society in which all people are equal. He said:
I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
We live in a privileged country and I struggle to imagine personally what I or others would have been capable of doing presented with similar circumstances. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (18:19): I speak to this condolence motion on behalf of the people of Bennelong. Woollarawarre Bennelong was the first Indigenous Australian to befriend the white settlers, and so this may well be appropriate. Around the world over the past week, there has been only a very brief moment of mourning the passing of Nelson Mandela, because, in hearing this news, as one the world commenced a celebration of his life, and that is appropriate. Many people have talked a great deal about his contribution and the type of man that he was. Archbishop Desmond Tutu had a very personal and long-term relationship with Nelson Mandela, and he said:
Never before in history was one human being so universally acknowledged in his lifetime as the embodiment of magnanimity and reconciliation as Nelson Mandela was. He set aside the bitterness of enduring 27 years in apartheid prisons—and the weight of centuries of colonial division, subjugation and repression—to personify the spirit and practice of ubuntu—
or human kindness—
He perfectly understood that people are dependent on other people in order for individuals and society to prosper.
… … …
Can you imagine what would have happened … had Mandela emerged from prison in 1990 bristling with resentment at the gross miscarriage of justice? Can you imagine where South Africa would be today had he been consumed by a lust for revenge, to want to pay back for all the humiliations and all the agony that he and his people had suffered at the hands of their white oppressors?
Instead, the world was amazed, indeed awed, by the unexpectedly peaceful transition of 1994, followed not by an orgy of revenge and retribution but by the wonder of forgiveness and reconciliation epitomized in the processes of the TRC—
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Quoting Tom Curry from NBC News:
Mandela's biographer, Rick Stengel, said a decisive moment for South Africa came three years after his release from prison when Chris Hani, a popular leader of the African National Congress, was murdered by an apartheid supporter.
Hani’s assassination came at the moment that the ANC was negotiating with South African President Frederik Willem de Klerk's white-minority apartheid government on the terms of the transition to majority rule.
After Hani's murder, Mandela went on the state-run national television network to tell his country, "We must not permit ourselves to be provoked by people who seek to deny us the very freedom for which Chris Hani gave his life."
Mandela "went on television in South Africa that night—rather than de Klerk—and showed that he was the father of the nation," Stengel said. He was so calm in a crisis and he rose to that. And he said later that was when South Africa was on the knife edge of a civil war, right then, that was the most perilous moment in their modern history."
Fergal Keane from the BBC has written:
To the wider world he represented many things, not least an icon of freedom but also the most vivid example in modern times of the power of forgiveness and reconciliation. Back in the early 1990s, I remember then President, FW De Klerk, telling me … how he found Mandela's lack of bitterness "astonishing".
His fundamental creed was best expressed in his address to the sabotage trial in 1964. "I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination," he said.
"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Nelson Mandela often spoke of his human qualities and yet, if we think that his life was such an example of Christian values, understanding that it is 'human to err, divine to forgive', and that 'vengeance is mine, saith the Lord', we see that he was human, he was divine and he chose not to take any vengeance.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (18:25): I rise today to speak about a great man, a man who not only inspired a nation but also inspired the world. Very few people have single-handedly had as large an impact on the world than Nelson Mandela. Born in 1918, in Transkei, South Africa, into the Thembu tribe, Nelson Mandela went on to lead one of the most extraordinary lives that we have witnessed in our time. Educated at the University College of Fort Hare, Mandela completed his law degree at the University of Witwatersrand. Not long after his graduation he joined the African National Congress to combat the apartheid policies of the ruling National Party.
These policies divided a nation, oppressed a people and led to great poverty in South Africa. Mandela's political journey was not a journey without controversy. In his early years he was a supporter of violent resistance and created a splinter group within the ANC, the Umkhonto we Sizwe, that advocated for this violence.
In 1962 he was arrested and sentenced to five years hard labour. After the ANC was outlawed by the government, Nelson Mandela was charged with plotting to overthrow the government by violence and sentenced to life in prison. He spent 27 years of his 95 years on Robben Island as a political prisoner. It was there that Nelson Mandela had a life-changing experience, an epiphany, as it were: instead of advocating violence to change his country he would advocate for peace. He would do that by demonstrating that he was prepared to forgive those people who had jailed him and who had taken his freedom. Through this forgiveness and humility, he would seek to unite his nation.
His ability to eradicate the hate that once enveloped him and his embrace of long-time political opponents led to successful reconciliation in South Africa. He was supported in this journey not only by his own country but by many right around the world. We here in Australia played a special role in that, in supporting these aims to end apartheid in South Africa. Both sides of this chamber, both Liberal and Labor, then supported investment sanctions that had, I think, a very critical impact on changing the focus of many of those in South Africa and their view on apartheid.
We were also able to honour, in our own special way, the great career and achievements of Nelson Mandela when former Prime Minister John Howard presented Nelson Mandela with an Order of Australia for his courage and strong moral leadership.
Today, in this chamber we honour—and I am sure it is echoed in many parliaments around the world—a great life. It takes a supreme sense of grace, dignity and magnanimity to offer your lifelong enemy the hand of peace and friendship. And that is what Nelson Mandela did. It is also a great achievement of President FW de Klerk to take that hand of friendship as it was offered and to unite South Africa by breaking down the apartheid barriers so that it was no longer a country divided by race and, instead, to build a new South Africa together.
Upon his release from prison, Nelson Mandela won the first free election in South Africa that was open to all people. He used that opportunity to support a burgeoning new democracy and a new social order. The ANC had gone from an outlawed political organisation to the ruling party; and Nelson Mandela from a political prisoner, held in the harshest of conditions, to a political hero who was healing his nation. In 1993 Nelson Mandela was duly recognised with the Nobel Peace Prize. Although it was undoubtedly deserved, I suspect it was very little consolation for a life much of which was spent behind bars on an island, imprisoned for fighting for his political rights and the rights of his people.
While Nelson Mandela will be missed by almost everybody in this world, I think we can say, because of his huge impact, he will be most particularly missed by those closest to him—his family. He had a very large and extended family, with his wives, six children, 17 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren. To conclude, I would like to quote Nelson Mandela:
For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Nelson Mandela, you are finally free, and we hope you rest in peace.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (18:32): I rise to celebrate the life of this great man and recognise the challenge that he gives the world. It is beyond my comprehension how you can spend 27 years in jail and come out and act in the way that he has. He says he is not a saint, but I do not know of another person that could do that. The enormity of what he lived through, the persecution, and then to have the hope of the nation upon you, leaves you speechless. We see so many regimes change and we see so much hope, as we have seen in the Middle East of late, and so often that hope just dissolves because the people charged with taking their nations forward are just not up to the task. Here is a man that has gone above and beyond in every walk of life.
Whether sitting in this place or in our normal lives, we or any person can look to him for inspiration and for a role model—one that I know we will all fail. But we can at least attempt in our normal way of life to reach some of that forgiving nature that he not only espoused but lived by. It was not the words which so many other members today have repeated, though they are eloquent, they are brilliant, they are moving and they are going to go down in history through the aeons. It is the fact that he followed those through actions—actions that are quite beyond what we recognise as being not just acceptable but what mankind has been known to do.
Some have reflected upon the fact that South Africa today is not a brilliant nation, but think of what it was only a short time ago. And it has come to this point in its history largely through a movement and through a belief, but it is through the leadership of an individual. As the member for Berowra has said, he has been to the island and he has been in the prison cell. He has been able to experience that and to have that soak in; to appreciate that Mandela, for 365 days a year for 27 years through the best years of his life, not thinking there was any hope that that was ever going to end, would come out at the other end of that and then walk as tall as he has done—to walk into a community of whites and sit down and break bread with the man who wanted to see him sentenced to death—and at no stage show retribution. If all of us in this place can draw something from this man's life, then his impacts will go way beyond South Africa, and way beyond this generation. They will live on in generations to come. That is what we owe him for what he has achieved, and for the sacrifices that he and his family and his community have endured for so long. If we do that, then that is the simply the greatest honour that we can pay him. We thank him for his contribution. We acknowledge his life. We celebrate his life. And we pass on our condolences to everybody who is feeling the pain of his passing.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (18:36): Much will be said and forever pondered on the life of Nelson Mandela. Over the last few days, many eloquent words have been spoken—and will be spoken—about this remarkable man who has forever changed our world. Yesterday, I was reading the Sunday papers and reflecting on his life as I looked through the photo galleries. I was confronted by an image of Nelson Mandela finally walking free. You are always struck when you see images like this by the vulnerability and the humanity of the man—incarcerated for 27 years yet so inspired that he never lost his passion to see his vision of a free South Africa.
In historic times when these things happen, many of us think back and ask, where were you when this happened? For me, I was at school in year 7. I was only 12 years of age. My teacher was one of the most amazing men that I would ever have the privilege to meet, a gentleman by the name of Nigel Kleinveldt. Mr Kleinveldt was what would have been described under the apartheid regime as a 'coloured' man, and hence had left South Africa. This was a moment in history that he was never going to miss—having a class whilst watching Mandela finally walk free. Mr Kleinveldt booked the TV for our class, and we sat watching history unfold before us. As a 12-year-old, I did not fully understand at the time the significance of what I was viewing, but I could see and I did understand the emotion on the face of my remarkable teacher, Mr Kleinveldt, and through him I saw what it meant to so many people—the inspiration of Nelson Mandela. This is possibly one of my most striking memories from my schooldays. I doubt I will ever be able to thank Nigel Kleinveldt enough for being able to share this emotion with us.
I echo the sentiments of so many of the previous speakers today. Nelson Mandela was a remarkable man. So much more than just a political leader, he was also a moral leader, a philanthropist, an anti-apartheid revolutionary and a freedom fighter. He is one of those towering figures of the 20th century who will hold an enduring place alongside Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King as an advocate for human dignity. With the death of Mandela, the world may have lost one of our living treasures. But the legacy of his life will live on for those he has touched and inspired, not only those who are alive today but also future generations. Mandela has truly enriched the lives and the future of our world. I would like to conclude today with a quote from Nelson Mandela himself:
When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for the eternity.
Based on this philosophy, one can be assured that Nelson Mandela will rest in peace. Vale Nelson Mandela.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (18:39): In modern times words like 'iconic' or 'living legend' or dare I say 'hero' are bandied about far too often. The superlatives we use for those who have passed make it difficult to differentiate and mark appropriately the passing of someone of the calibre and standing of Nelson Mandela. How do we acknowledge the contribution this man made to the world if all the accolades we could use have been used for others whose light shone pale by comparison to his?
Instead of doing that, I want to look at the greatest of Nelson Mandela's legacies. He was a man who, like all men, had human strengths and human frailties. His greatest gift without which his legacy would have been so much less was surely that of forgiveness. How many men—or women, for that matter—would have finished a 27-year prison term of hard labour and deprivation by forgiving their jailers? How many people would have been capable of the forgiveness and generosity of spirit that Mandela showed to those who held him and other South Africans as second-class human beings? His focus on the dignity of the human spirit over its thirst for revenge is the great inspiration he left the world. In this way he ranks with Gandhi as one of the true heroes of the modern age. Both Gandhi and Mandela responded to violence with peace and to anger with understanding. How often in our modern society do we glorify anger, violence and revenge? Our movies and television heroes do not respond to attack with humble and considerate reason. Instead, we often see our community fed a diet of anger and aggression. Our heroes are those who are most aggressive. It is the Mandelas and Gandhis of this world who are our true heroes.
Nelson Mandela is a far better role model that any fake superhero or movie star. His vision for South Africa post apartheid was not to reverse the positions of power as a vengeful leader might have sought to do—and, as history shows, that has often been repeated—instead, his rainbow nation was designed to encompass all; to lift all, not to tread down some.
Of course such lofty ambition is not easily achieved and to say that there are no problems remaining in South Africa would be false. There is still much to be done in terms of standards of living, law and order and social harmony. It will fall to a new generation of leaders to finally finish the dream that Nelson Mandela began. Only time will tell if this new group of leaders is up to the task. However, such achievement would be possible only because they truly stand on the shoulders of a giant.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (18:43): I follow the very telling and moving words of my colleague and friend the member for Forrest, who has joined many people in this chamber in paying their respects following the passing of Nelson Mandela. In life most heroes are anonymous, but Nelson Mandela was a hero who was far from anonymous. His public struggle for true democracy and freedom in his country, South Africa, was a struggle that galvanised supporters around the world. He truly was a great man who, passing at the age of 95, has left the world a better place than it was when he found it.
To think that he was imprisoned for 27 years! His sole job in prison was to break rocks. He was allowed one visitor every six months. He was a man of letters, but he was only allowed to write or receive one letter every six months. His eyesight was diminished by the glare of the quarry beneath his cell. It would have been easy for a man in that position to simply give up the struggle or to negotiate his principles away so that he could get out of incarceration. But Nelson Mandela said no to such overtures. Nelson Mandela did his time till he was released in 1990, and from there he became President of South Africa. The 'from prisoner to president' story knows no better example than that told by the life and times of Nelson Mandela.
What strikes me about this man's character is his dignity, his forbearance and his ability to look beyond the hardship of his years and the nature of his imprisonment and the attacks which he had to confront throughout his whole life. He was able to rise above all these things and to reach out to the white rulers in South Africa and plot a path forward together with them. With FW de Klerk, who I believe deserves a lot of credit too, he formed a new South Africa without a bullet being fired. Democracy was awakened and a pluralistic country born which stands as an example to the world of what can be achieved through the ballot box as opposed to the end of a rifle.
I believe that Nelson Mandela is an inspiration to a generation of black, white and coloured people—and to humanity in general. I look up on my wall in my office here in parliament to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln as a man whose example stands the test of time. So too will the successors to me and my colleagues in this place be talking in 50 or 100 or 150 years' time about the achievements and the life of Nelson Mandela. There are not many people in the world who have had the impact of the same size and nature as the impact that Nelson Mandela has had.
There is a graphic example of the brilliance of this man. It is the way that he inspired his nation to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup by embracing the overwhelmingly white South African rugby team and leading the country off the battlefield while Francois Pienaar and others led it on the battlefield to victory in the World Cup. And we will never forget that picture of him wearing the cap from the Springboks, wearing the jumper of the Springboks and leading the rejoicing from the stadium.
I want to conclude by saying that we do celebrate Nelson Mandela's life. We do understand that he was a man, as my friend the member for Forrest said, who had strengths and, of course, as any person does, human frailties. We celebrate his contribution to humanity but we also understand that it is his legacy that must be protected, and we cannot be complacent about the harmony that may exist today in South Africa or indeed that exists around the world. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, not only was Nelson Mandela an honorary Companion of the Order of Australia but he was also a Nobel Prize winner. In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in 1993 he said about the struggle against apartheid and the people who got behind that struggle against apartheid the following:
These countless human beings, both inside and outside our country, had the nobility of spirit to stand in the path of tyranny and injustice, without seeking selfish gain. They recognised that an injury to one is an injury to all and therefore acted together in defense of justice and a common human decency.
I say to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that that is a paragraph that can be extended far beyond its application to just South Africa and apartheid rule there.
So we remember on this day Nelson Mandela. We thank him for his service. We say to the people of South Africa that we, Australia, are with you. We are proud that we played a small but significant role in the anti-apartheid movement and we look forward to a world in which Mandela's legacy is not only strengthened but is remembered in the best possible way.
Debate adjourned.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Youth Allowance
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (18:53): As the Deputy Speaker would know I have waged a long battle, as he has, for a fair and better go for regional students in the tertiary education system in this country. It was my motion on 28 October 2010 which called on the then Labor government to reverse its decision to discriminate against regional students in the changes that they made to youth allowance. This motion was the first defeat on the floor of the House for an incumbent government for a long, long time, and in my view represented a low point for Labor in power at that time.
I thought it was a low point as well because of the importance of that particular issue and the importance of youth allowance to young people who live in rural, regional and remote areas. Labor had, as we saw repeatedly, disadvantaged regional Australian families and students for the express purpose, in this case, of diverting funds into outer metropolitan seats. For those of us who live in regional areas and work with people in those areas, this had an immediate and profound effect. I know that members like me had family after family and young person after young person coming to see them, and it was the most dreadful time.
I was in a supermarket and had a mum come up to me in desperation because she wanted to talk to me about the fact that she had to choose which one of her children she could afford to send to university in Perth. They lived two or three hours away and they had no choice. Her children did not have the choice to be educated locally; they had to move to the city. Of course, this meant that families had to choose. I had one particular family who had five children who needed to go to university, and the family could not afford to send them. I had one mum who said to me, 'Both my husband and I have gone and got second jobs to try to give our children the opportunity to go to university.' That came about through the changes that the Labor government made at that time.
There was a two-year campaign in 2010 and 2011 before the previous Labor government made some changes. There were profound efforts, and there was an inquiry into this. The inquiry came into my electorate, and many of the families who had worked with me for so long on this came along and gave evidence to that inquiry. They were very honest to the inquiry, and for practical purposes they could demonstrate exactly what this had done.
When I visited schools, what disturbed me most was that these great young people from my part of the world had literally changed their options to the subjects they were taking because they knew their families could not afford to send them to university, so they had made conscious decisions about their futures because they would never be able to afford that option. That, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, was something I found very hard to deal with: that these great young people were unable to pursue their ambitions and their dreams. They were not able to go to university. The measure of support that youth allowance gave them was the difference between being able to go to university and not being able to go to university. Of course, we rely on those young people to come back into our communities and to be our leaders of the future or really important parts of our community.
So this was something that many of us fought very hard for at the time. I wondered then why, as part of making the change, the previous Labor government then added a parental means test to the students who were classified as independent, even though they were independent of their families. We know that many students have to take a year off to earn enough to be considered independent, and that applies particularly to regional students. They have no choice but to move away, and they have so many costs when they move, including accommodation and the food that they need. They cannot even go home to their families. They have no choice but to live away. Not only does this often create some social and emotional challenges for them; it creates a huge financial burden on each of those families. They are costs that those who live in a metropolitan area would not have to face, and they would have the support of their families around them in often trying circumstances when they are going to university and studying.
The then education minister, Julia Gillard, changed the rules and used the maps where the ABS defined the Australian Standard Geographical Classification remoteness areas to pick the winners and losers. That divided the regional students again: those in outer regional and remote areas, who could access youth allowance after taking a single gap year; and the losers, technically in the so-called inner regional zones, who had to take two years off. It certainly did what it was intended to do, which was to reduce the number of regional students who were able to achieve independent status. It drove regional students out of the education process. This was a two-year battle.
The Labor government took independent status away from inner and outer regional students unless they took the two years off. Inner and outer regional students could then only qualify under the new rules for independents and earn their funds in blocks of 30 hours over 18 months. So there have been more and more challenges for these young people and their families to meet. For outer regional students 2013 was the first time that the means test applied. This was really an unforgivable decision by the then Labor government. There is no doubt that this was seen as discriminatory. In my area families came, and still come, to tell me that they believe that this is a form of discrimination against their children and their children's opportunities.
We know that young people in rural and regional areas are desperate for the opportunity to pursue their education. Often the only option they have for the courses they seek is a city based university. None of us underestimates the disadvantage they face. We are already seeing a reduced number of students from rural and regional areas go to university. This is something that has plagued me and still does. It is certainly something that plagues rural and regional students and their families. The whole family feels this.
When I look now at it, I see that these same families are being hit again by the debt and deficit we have been left. Our gross debt is over $400 billion and our interest payments are over $10 billion and I think, in relation to regional families and students, that is a lot of education opportunities for students in rural and regional areas. That is something that the previous Labor government clearly took lightly, but it is not something that regional families take lightly. One of the most important issues is opportunity for their students and their young people. They are constantly talking to me. They know I took a very strong position on this and that I would have sought a review on this whole process.
I intend to keep fighting for rural and regional students and their families. For these young people their time at university makes a difference for their whole life. None of us here underestimate the importance of education, and certainly not for those in rural and regional areas. We want our young people to come back to us. We want them to go away, get an education and qualify themselves. These are the young people who come back to us. I want to bring them back. I want to see them come back as doctors, specialists, engineers, teachers, whatever. They will make fantastic members of our community, but they need the education to start with. A key part of that is the additional cost involved for a rural and regional student in pursuing their education away from their home. That is why the issue of youth allowance is so critical to so many students and their families. Like my colleagues, I will continue to work on this issue.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:03): Now that we are in the final week of this parliamentary year, it is worth reflecting on some of Newcastle's achievements and on the new government's agenda and the impact that might have for the people of my electorate of Newcastle. I do have many concerns. The time allotted tonight does not allow me to go through them all, so I will focus on a number that I believe have the broadest reach, particularly for the electorate of Newcastle.
As I touched on in my first speech, Newcastle is a city that leads with distinction in so many areas, such as the arts, science, sports, innovation, manufacturing and education. We are world leaders in a number of scientific fields that are directly saving lives. Researchers like Newcastle's laureate Professor John Aitken, the 2012 New South Wales scientist of the year, and his fellow researchers at HMRI are making a difference in medical research.
We are producing award-winning plays that are touring the country. In October this year, Alana Valentine won three Australian Writers' Guild awards for her 2012 play Grounded, which was centred on the famous grounding of the Pasha Bulker on Nobby's Beach in Newcastle in the 2007 storms that ravaged our city. We are home also to some of Australia's best athletes. World-beaters like Paralympians Kurt Fearnley and Christie Dawes are leading the way, and many young athletes are following. Even my team, the Newcastle Knights, had a good year, finishing in the final four in the NRL. We have some of the best journalists, too. Just last month, Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy won the Gold Walkley for her coverage of the sexual abuse of children, helping to uncover decades of abuse within the Catholic Church in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. It is a shocking part of our history, but her dedication to exposing the truth was necessary and much lauded. We also host great events, and we build amazing things.
I stood for the seat of Newcastle for Labor on the basis that I believed we had the best plan for the electorate and for the nation—a plan that would address needs, a plan that made sense, a plan that mapped out a future and a plan that was all-encompassing. Notwithstanding the distinct lack of plans this government have for Newcastle, I now have concerns that their commission of cuts will further harm the city. Agreements are being torn up, contracts are going unhonoured and promises are being broken every day.
On 15 April 2010 the then Minister for Education, the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, initiated a review of funding arrangements for schools to look at a new way of supporting Australian children. The result was the Gonski report—a report that recommended a new system of funding education, a system that tackled inequity and disadvantage to make education accessible for everyone and to level the playing fields to give every kid a chance, a system that was transparent, fair and sustainable, a system that promoted excellent education outcomes for all Australian students. The Gonski recommendations and funding arrangements were announced in April this year, passing through the parliament not long after. New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania, the Catholic schools group and the independent schools group all signed up. At one stage even the now Prime Minister and the now Minister for Education pledged their support for the model. They went to the election pledging a unity ticket on education.
We all know the story since then—the acrobatic flip-flopping between support, nonsupport, more funding, less funding and now the no-strings-attached cash handout for state governments. In the end, it seems as though the government have landed on less overall funding and have scrapped the recommendations for reform. It is little wonder that people are saying this is not the government they voted for. Abandoning the system does not make sense. It was created by the best minds in this country. It tackled inequity. This government clearly do not believe that everyone should have the same opportunities. Indeed, the Minister for Education has now declared that he does not believe there is an equity problem in Australian education. The evidence does not agree with him. Last week, the Program for International Student Assessment report released by the OECD showed that disadvantaged students in Australia are up to three years behind their peers and that students in regional and remote areas are almost a year behind city students.
We know that under the existing funding model we were falling behind. That is why we were reforming the system that got us into this position. It is apt today that I quote perhaps the greatest tackler of inequality in our history, Nelson Mandela. He said:
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
I urge the government to reconsider their reforms and to stick with the system that the Gonski report set out. It would be a powerful weapon to change Australia.
I also have concerns for the training and higher education sectors, which are areas where Newcastle thrives. The Labor government threw open the doors to Australian universities, with 190,000 more Australians now attending universities compared to 2007, enabling any Australian with ability and commitment to attend university. The 'commission of cuts' is promising to close the doors on higher education. The University of Newcastle, Australia's leader in opening doors to higher education through their enabling programs for universities, will suffer. The next generation of Australians will suffer.
In Newcastle, the higher education and TAFE sectors work very closely together to improve outcomes for students. I recently had the pleasure of attending an evening of recognition for the University of Newcastle industrial design graduates. These were not necessarily graduates who had the highest or best academic records throughout high school. They were the students who found their way to university through TAFE. The first three years of their degrees took place at TAFE, equipping them with the necessary practical skills before their study and research were refined at the University of Newcastle. They are the idea makers of tomorrow who, through a good education and a strong partnership between education sectors, are now graduating from our universities.
I note that the recent decisions of the New South Wales government to cut our TAFE system will have massive implications for those kinds of cross-partnerships between the university and TAFE, where we have done some great training. But more people have gained access to university study and education under Labor, and the track record there is substantial.
Access to education is likely to be cut, and funding to schools operating with this no-strings agreement is going to end in poor outcomes for Newcastle.
Sticking with my education concerns, I just finally mention that the parents and families who find it difficult to put their kids through school are now looking at losing out on the schoolkids bonus. It looks like there are more than 6,200 low- and middle-income-earning families in my electorate of Newcastle who are set to miss out on the schoolkids bonus under the watch of this new government. The schoolkids bonus is not beer-and-skittles money, as the Prime Minister has described it; it is money that helps families put their kids through school. Uniforms, shoes, textbooks, school equipment, school camps, laptops and school fees are not free. All of these things cost money, and the schoolkids bonus helps those who need it most.
As disappointing as it is that this government had no particular plan for Newcastle, made no promises to build on our education or infrastructure sectors and did not make any particular pledges to any of our industries in the area, you can be assured that I will continue to stand up for my community and hold this government to account for every cut to every job and every service that hurts the people of Newcastle.
Mental Health
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (19:13): I rise tonight to speak of an issue that has touched many people, not just in my life but in the lives of many in my electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with some of the issues I have raised in the past in relation to mental health. The issue is mental health, the provision of mental health services and the extreme challenges that these providers face in gaining the ongoing financial support from government that enables them to carry out their vital work.
Firstly, it is important to outline some of the programs that are ongoing in my area and a few tragic situations that have really driven home the importance of having these services available. Starting as a pilot in 2010, initially funded by the Queensland government in collaboration with the Centacare in Cairns, the Far North Queensland Rural Division of General Practice, Youth Link and Aftercare, Time Out has been critical for the Cairns community, reducing in-patient stays for young people aged 15 to 25 through early intervention. It has made a huge difference to their lives, many going on training courses and into jobs that they could not have considered before and becoming productive members of society. I had a couple of instances myself where I was able to refer families to this Time Out centre—families that had been absolutely devastated by the challenges of young people with mental health issues. As a consequence of that, these young people have found an opportunity to get a direction and are starting to move on with their lives.
If you think about it purely from a cost perspective, the average stay is about 50 days in the Time Out centre. Compare the cost of a 50-day residential stay with the cost of putting a young person in an adult psychiatric ward, where the average stay is 312 days. If you are arguing economics, you can see that there is a huge difference here. Unfortunately, these kinds of resounding results were not enough to protect this program from funding cuts, the direct result of the former Labor government's slashing funding in Queensland Health.
Time Out was told in January that its funding would be discontinued. At this point, I became involved in the situation, thanks to the tireless campaigning of the Queensland State Manager for Aftercare, Ivan Frkovic. Mr Frkovic and I recognise the overwhelming need for this service, given there is no other centre of this kind in North Queensland. It took some urgent conversations with the Minister for Health in Queensland and Minister Springborg agreed to fund this residential service for a further six months. I will continue to fight to support this service. We need to keep Time Out House alive. These are the sorts of things that are absolutely critical for the mental health and wellbeing of our young people.
After meeting a wonderful lady, Adrianne Hicks, who is a carer for a son with schizophrenia, I was able to secure a grant for a pilot program in 2006 under the Howard government. So successful was this program that the Cairns Mental Health Carers Support Hub was launched in October 2009. The hub is a one-stop shop and its approach has been absolutely fantastic—success for families and services alike. It has seen a threefold increase in families contacting the service, a 300 per cent increase in referrals from other services, a 350 per cent increase in referrals from the hub to other service providers and a tenfold increase in their ability to provide counselling support to carers and families throughout the region. A carers' hub involves the people who actually supply care and support for the carers who keep other people out of mental health institutions. They desperately need the support. Again, if we look at the economic side of things, it is much cheaper to provide funding support for the carers than to institutionalise the people whom they are caring for.
We have had an ongoing battle with funding. The previous government refused to support them. Again, I recognise the importance of this service and the support it offers to family members and carers of people with mental illness. I certainly will continue to fight for this service. I was fortunate in that Minister Dutton has indicated that they will be supporting the carers' hub, but it is short-term funding. We need to get something locked in so that we do not have to fight every year for this and we need to start looking at some long-term commitments. There was a sister venture to this and we had actually received a $350,000 commitment to a mental health clubhouse. The carers' hub was going to be the sponsor for it and if we had not got support for the hub to continue, this other commitment would have fallen over. We would not have been able to support it. Minister Dutton has kept alive the mental health carers support centre and, in doing so, that will allow us the clubhouse, and that will allow people to transition from care to an environment where they can start to do some work and become financially independent. A lot more needs to be done in this area because, quite frankly, governments have been very slow in looking at these ancillary services that actually keep people out of institutions and which are so desperately needed.
The Dr Edward Koch Foundation has been providing suicide prevention activities and support in Far North Queensland for over 18 years. This nonprofit organisation was established in March 1997 and in recent years its primary focus has been suicide prevention and post suicide support. As part of its suicide prevention focus, the foundation delivers life workshops, a life bereavement support service in Far North Queensland, a suicide prevention task force and life suicide prevention plans.
The foundation has always operated on a shoestring budget, but this year its funding has been pulled as a result of actions by the previous government. The foundation's suicide prevention work is internationally recognised, but the former Labor government decided in its wisdom to give its funding to the Wesley Mission as a national organisation, which removes all local expertise from the situation. The irony is that Wesley Mission has recognised the value of the Koch Foundation's program and has asked for permission to replicate the service and use its networks. This is unbelievable and highlights how it is convenient for bureaucrats to dump the money into one national organisation, rather than supporting long-established, internationally recognised organisations that know exactly what needs to be done within the local community.
Another one is the Declan Crouch Fund. Ruth Crouch is a local mum who tragically lost her 13-year-old son, Declan, to suicide in March 2011. She set up the Declan Crouch Fund to raise suicide awareness with money raised through the Dr Edward Koch Foundation. Together the fund and the foundation are running a campaign to lobby politicians for much needed adolescent mental health wards in Cairns. We do not have any at the moment. The petition is online and already has some 6,400 signatures. I am sure it will reach its goal of 10,000. Earlier this year, as part of the Cairns Corporate Challenge, the member for Barron River, Michael Trout, walked the Kokoda Trail and they raised something like $83,000 in support of this wonderful initiative.
Why is there such a focus in my region on services outside the hospital system? Why is there an urgent need for adolescent mental health beds in our hospital? I recently had the opportunity to walk through the adult psychiatric ward and the forensic ward in the Cairns Base Hospital. It was a real shock; it is disgraceful. People working there are doing a great job, but some people come out of prison and go straight into those wards while looking for day release to get out and commit crimes and so go back to prison, which has better facilities than does the hospital. It is little wonder I was contacted by the mother of a 13-year-old girl who had been in and out of that ward since she was 11 because she had been swallowing razor blades and batteries in trying to take her life. It is appalling.
Through intervention I was able to get the state minister, Lawrence Springborg, to have her admitted to the Barrett Adolescent Centre, outside Brisbane. The centre is looking at expanding to Townsville, but it is more appropriate in Cairns. The argument is that Townsville has a wraparound service to support it which is convenient for the bureaucracy. The reality is Cairns has a much greater need because of the rate of suicide. It is about time we look at putting in services where they are needed, rather than for the convenience of the bureaucracy. I will argue strongly for this, because if we do not start to deal with this important issue of service provision for adolescent mental health, we will be a very sad society. I will raise this issue regularly until we get some solutions for these problems in our regional areas.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (19:23): I rise to grieve for the Australian automotive industry. This issue is causing serious concern in my electorate where thousands of skilled workers depend on our car industry and where Holden has its major plants at Fishermans Bend. The fate of Australia's last big manufacturing sector hangs in the wind due to the government's torpor. Inaction is the government's byword. It is caused by deep ideological divisions in the coalition and a fanatic ideology held by some, with some ministers secretly backgrounding the media while in the middle of a hopefully objective assessment by the Productivity Commission. What we need in this debate is rational, considered policy—policy that judges the entire scope of this area of manufacturing and how a small investment by the government multiplies into thousands of jobs, millions of dollars in research and development and significant export dollars. At its height a few years ago when the dollar was not so high, the car industry was exporting nearly $200 million of automobiles to the Middle East, Asia and other places.
Instead, at the moment we see the coalition and the Prime Minister attempting to shift the blame by making it look as though the closure has nothing to do with Australian government policy. We have the member for Warringah saying, 'I do wish Holden would clarify their intentions because at the moment they've got everyone on tenterhooks,' instead of offering to engage with Holden in relation to their future plans. It is not up to the victim of rumour-mongering to respond to those saboteurs who are trying to undermine the manufacturing industry by spreading rumours.
This double game of the government is stark. On the program Lateline, the reporter Chris Uhlmann revealed with a sense of urgency a leak by some leading Australian minister. This is a minister leaking that the automobile manufacturing industry is going to close at a time when his own minister, the Minister for Industry, Mr Macfarlane, is working with the Productivity Commission to see that an objective inquiry is made into how this industry can be supported. If the story had not been broken by the coalition, there would have been no need for the Prime Minister to call on Holden to clarify its intention. It is like goading General Motors as far as possible to close down—hardly the 'open for business' state of affairs for Australia that we heard from the coalition prior to the election.
The coalition is backgrounding journalists about 'supply-chain decisions' in Detroit. This is a clear attempt, in my view, to shift the blame by making it look as though the closure has nothing to do with Australian government policy. Did anyone take the Liberal and National parties seriously when they promised to cut $500 million from the Australian automobile industry prior to the election? I suppose people heard the claims. They did not think that they would go so far as to make redundant the last great area of our manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister says the government 'will not chase them down the road waving a blank cheque at them'—hardly what is being called for—rather than acknowledging the tough field that Australia faces at the moment because of the high dollar and foreign government subsidies. He says:
Ever since the first car rolled off the line in 1949 there have been pots and pots of money available to the car industry in this country.
By contrast, the shadow minister for industry, Senator Carr, said:
For $300 million a year, Holden, Toyota and 160 … manufacturing companies plus all the suppliers that flow from there can be preserved but the Government does not want to face up to its responsibilities.
It is a significant investment but an investment that brings returns. When Labor invested $2.7 billion in this industry, we saw a $26 billion return on new investment. This is a return on investment of nine to one—pretty impressive, in my view. It also means that we directly employ 46,000 people in the car industry in South Australia and Victoria and 33,000 in Victoria still have a job. That is not to mention what $150 million means to the preservation of high-quality jobs in Australia.
A blanket rule cannot be applied to the entire coalition. There are a beleaguered group of MPs, it appears, around Minister Macfarlane who want to keep the car industry and are acting in good faith. Nonetheless, in my view, it is clear—you can read it in the newspapers—that the ideological advocates of the so-called free market, including the member for Higgins and the member for Mayo, seem to be rampant and they seem to reflect the views of many of the members of the government from Sydney, who have contempt for the manufacturing industry. In opposition, the Liberals pledged to cut $500 million from the industry. They are not putting anything further into it, as the Prime Minister insists. South Australian Premier Weatherill said:
So they're going to make it a fait accompli by seeking to destroy Holden through damaging speculation.
… … …
… they want to transfer responsibility to Holden, to get Holdens to make the decision to close and absolve themselves of responsibility.
But the effect of doing that would be to jeopardise General Motors' contemplated investment of $1 billion to develop two new models in Australia. It would also undermine the $750 million in research and development that this industry spends a year. It is the biggest research and development expenditure in any industry in Australia. To jeopardise this for relatively small amounts of money from the national budget and for ideological reasons is not rational economics.
There are other important points that coalition members ignore. The auto industry is not operating on a level playing field. The US spends 14 times more money on the automotive industry than Australia, and Germany spends five times as much. In Australia the cost-per-capita support is around $17 per vehicle, far lower than the $90 per person in Germany and the $264 in the United States. There is not a car on the road anywhere in the world that is not supported by the government somewhere. Despite this, Australia's automotive industry has performed relatively well. A significant percentage of all Australian vehicles are exported still and they sell more than 100,000 per year to Australian customers. In recent years the total automotive manufacturing industry turnover has declined because the value of the Australian dollar has increased. It is a very narrow mind that wants to undermine and destroy the capital of this great industry, because the Australian dollar will not stay high forever. Between 60c and 80c, this industry is a very important export earner for Australia. Why destroy the vast capital that has been built up by these companies, the engineering know-how, on the basis of a fanatical free-market ideology?
It is astounding to have a government which dismisses huge job losses that would accompany the end of the auto industry. People in my electorate who host the base of operations are not so blase. The number of jobs that would immediately be lost were the auto industry to close down is, as I said, 46,000 directly. It is estimated by various people, including the Productivity Commission in the past, that the automotive industry indirectly employs 310,000 people. According to some estimates, the effect on the budget bottom line of increased welfare payments if the entire auto industry was to close, and this would happen in a cascading effect if Holden or Toyota were to close, would exceed $20 billion. The automotive industry is important not just for the jobs it creates; $750 million of research and development go into it.
It is time for the government to start thinking practically, practising rational economics, weighing the cost of closing this industry against the small public support that it needs, particularly through this transition time when the Australian dollar is high. We should be thinking clearly and rationally in the economic interest of Australia beyond the immediate time of these few days and we certainly should not be acting on the basis of hardline ideological views that are fashionable with Grace Collier and some of the lesser known ideologues in the Institute of Public Affairs. People in parliament have a responsibility to see that the Australian economy is not undermined in the long term. Between 60c and 80c, where the Australian dollar has been to the American dollar for long periods of time, the Australian automotive industry is very viable and a great export earner for this country.
I know many of the engineers and many of the people who work as skilled tradesmen in the automotive component industry. I grieve for them. I implore serious government members, including the two who are in this chamber tonight, to have a look at again, to make sure that those people in the government who are undermining this do not control the course of events by goading General Motors into making a decision we will all regret.
Fuel Prices
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:33): I rise tonight to express my concern and my disappointment at the undertakings that the ACCC has accepted from the supermarket duopoly. For the best part of this year the ACCC had been investigating the shopper-docket schemes used by our major supermarkets for fuel discounts. The ACCC had serious concerns that these were anticompetitive. I have spoken in this place before to put on the record that I believe this is truly anticompetitive and against the best interests of competition and the Australian consumer. What the ACCC has actually done is effectively agree to a plea bargain with our major supermarket chains. What they have accepted is that our two major supermarkets will voluntarily cease making fuel-saving offers, which are wholly or partially funded by any part of their business other than their fuel retailing arm, and will, in addition, limit fuel discounts which are linked to supermarket purchase to a maximum of four cents a litre.
This is a golden opportunity that the ACCC has missed that would truly expose how detrimental to the Australian consumer and the Australian small business community these shopper dockets are. We believe that competition is important and shopper dockets are anticompetitive. It is competition that drives innovation, that creates the new industries and the new products that are so necessary for our future prosperity. It is competition that keeps prices down for consumers. Where one company is able to cross-subsidise their participation in an unrelated market, as happens with shopper dockets, it simply distorts competition completely. We want to see a marketplace where the most efficient producers are the most successful. It is not about protecting competitors; it is about making sure the most efficient companies come to the forefront.
Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that if you were a small, independent petrol retailer—and perhaps one of the most efficient independent retailers of petrol that there could be—you could not possibly compete fairly if your competitor cross-subsidised and sold underneath your cost price by being able to leverage profits from a market where they did not face as much competition. An analogy from the sporting field is appropriate. If you have a boxing match with two competitors, you have a fair contest, but cross-subsidisation would have one competitor sit out several rounds, bring on another fighter to fight those rounds and then have the original fighter come back in. That is not a level playing field. Or, if one team in a rugby game was able to bring extra players onto the field, that would be exactly the same as the cross-subsidisation through the shopper dockets.
One of the reasons that it is truly anticompetitive is that the very source of our supermarkets' market power comes through special privilege and government protection. I have seen this in the electorate I represent. There is a shopping centre called the Warwick Farm Homemaker Centre, where the courts of this land have ruled that a retailer who is competing against the two major supermarket chains cannot sell a whole range of products. It is through those restrictive zoning laws that our major supermarkets are shielded from competition. That is the true source of their market power. As I said, this was a wonderful opportunity for the ACCC to come in and fix the mess of the last decade. If we go back more than a decade, we had laws in this country that required the ACCC to provide special authorisation to allow the supermarkets to instigate schemes of shopper-docket discounts. At that time, the ACCC in its wisdom decided to give this authorisation, and since then we have seen thousands and thousands of small independent retailers have their market share stolen and that market share taken over by the large supermarkets.
Professor King, back in 2004, warned of the anticompetitive nature of shopper dockets. He wrote in a piece on 16 July 2004 about the Australian experience of shopper dockets. He wrote that the spread of shopper-docket schemes could lead to a reduction in competition in the grocery and petrol industries due to the exit of incumbent players and increased barriers to entry. And that, unfortunately, is what we have seen. Now, more than a decade on, the ACCC has finally come to an arrangement with the supermarkets that they will limit their shopper dockets to 10c. It is simply too late.
An honourable member: Four cents.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I thank the member for his interjection. He is correct: four cents. It is simply too late. This is like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. No, it is not even closing the gate; it is leaving the gate open. Either a shopper docket discount scheme is anticompetitive or it is not anticompetitive. If it is not anticompetitive, how can the ACCC stand by and watch an agreement whereby two retailers, two competitors, in a market agree that they will limit their discounts to a certain amount? It beggars belief that the ACCC would allow such an arrangement. It has been configured as the worst of both worlds. This case provides the ACCC with ample opportunity to test our current law on predatory pricing, known as the Birdsville Amendment, in the courts. This would then enable the ACCC to come back to the parliament and say either that the law does not work and needs strengthening or that the law does work. We have had a law against predatory pricing in this country for six years, but the ACCC has not brought one single case. To date, we still do not know the effectiveness of that law, because it simply has not been tested by the ACCC in the courts.
There is also another issue with our competition laws. We know that, over the last several years, more than 1,000 small independent fuel retailers have closed down and gone out of business because of the shopper docket discount schemes. We often say how quickly small businesses close down and go out of business, but we have to think that behind each business there is a family, people with money invested, who have had their life savings wiped out because of these schemes. These small businesses should have rights and access to our courts, but they do not. Even though we do have these laws, which are untested and unproven, it is simply impossible for small businesses to proceed by themselves to test those laws; that is up to the ACCC.
Ultimately, we in this parliament have to decide whose side we are on. I know that there are some in this parliament who are quite happy to see two players control 70, 80 or 90 per cent or more of this industry sector. I say that is bad for our nation and bad for consumers.
It has been great to hear the wonderful first speeches of new members to this parliament. Many of them have said that they stand for small business. Under this government, a review of our competition and consumer laws is coming up. It is time that we backed up our rhetoric with action and made sure that our small business community is given the opportunity to compete. They do not want special privileges. They do not want handouts. They just want to be able to compete on a level playing field. I am confident that, if our small business sector are given that opportunity, if they are free from the anticompetitive effects of price discrimination and if they are free to compete where their competitors do not leverage profits through a shopper docket scheme, they will thrive like they have in the past.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (19:43): I rise tonight to speak on the strength of community in my electorate of Fraser. As is well known, the ACT has some of the highest rates of social capital in the nation. The most generous postcode, as measured by tax deductible gift donations, is 2602. The highest rates of volunteering of any state and territory are in the ACT. The ACT also has high rates of sporting participation, community club membership and even, according to the Clean Up Australia Day survey, low rates of litter.
Australians may have become disconnected over recent decades, but Canberra is a strongly connected city. Last Thursday, it was my pleasure to attend Volunteering ACT's Volunteering EXPO held in Albert Hall. The Volunteering EXPO brought together a plethora of ACT community groups, each looking for new volunteers. Ninety per cent of ACT voluntary groups say that they want more volunteers. It was a real pleasure to stroll the through the halls set up, as it were, as an Easter show of giving back to the community. Many of the local groups I spoke to had already signed up volunteers and were hoping to do so the following day.
I acknowledge the hard work of Maureen Cane, Rikki Blacka and Emilie Van Os Schmitt, from Volunteering ACT for their tireless efforts over recent weeks to make the volunteering expo a success. Volunteering ACT have been hard at work on other products as well. They recently produced a report, Promoting youth engagement and wellbeing through student volunteer programs in ACT schools, which I would commend to the House. Generating that culture of volunteering is so vital because volunteering, like so many other things, such as the habit of giving something back when one is at school, is indeed important work.
Volunteering ACT has also put together a booklet called 100 Volunteer Stories, compiled by Sarah Wilson and Emilie Van Os Schmitt. That book discusses so many of the great Canberra volunteers: Marjorie Boyer and Sheila Turner of Palliative Care ACT; Ian Goudie of Diversity ACT; the Railway Historical Society and its project to restore old trains; Cathy Starling and Judy Tier's stories of their involvement in Australian Business Volunteers, assisting developing countries to foster entrepreneurship and innovation; Ricardo Alberto and his hard work as President of the Gungahlin United Football Club; and the voluntary work that makes Volunteering ACT itself such a success.
I was also pleased on Friday to host one of my regular social entrepreneurs breakfasts where I bring together in my electorate office a set of social entrepreneurs who are doing good work in the local community. It is born out of a sense that I have and which, I believe, many members on both sides of the House share, that Australia needs more innovation and entrepreneurship. One area in which I believe I, as a local member, can do something to promote that is in bringing together local social entrepreneurs. They are an inspiring group, working on issues that are wide and diverse. Those who were able to attend Friday's social entrepreneurs breakfast included Julia Diprose of Vocal Majority; Pierre Johannessen of Big Bang Ballers; Brad Carron-Arthur, who runs a mental health organisation; Tony Shields, who is involved with Menslink; Ben Duggan, the founder of Raising Hope; and Danielle Dal Cortivo, founder of raize the roof.
I was also grateful to Fiona Nelson and Lincoln Rothall of WIN News for providing some opportunities through this breakfast to promote some of those great voluntary organisations in the local media. These organisations are inspiring and it is important that these social entrepreneurs have an opportunity to discuss with one another the shared challenges that they are facing: setting up a board, finding appropriate funding, managing the organisation in such a way that they do not burn out in their personal lives; thinking about who will succeed them in running their organisations; and thinking, too, about appropriate partnerships.
The strength of Canberra's community extends to its technology entrepreneurs. On the weekend I popped into Hackathon ACT, an IT boffin's delight held in the entrepreneur space, Entry 29, on the edge of the ANU campus. There I spoke with Rory Ford and Matt Stimson, who took me around the room and introduced me to various of the bleary-eyed entrepreneurs—this was early on Sunday afternoon and many of them had pulled an all-nighter all through Saturday. Caffeine was in abundance as was junk food. It was terrific to see the community of programmers and the innovative ideas they were working on. A team from one of the local schools was working on an app for Google Glass. I had not even realised that Google Glass was available in Australia, but they were not only using it but also developing a new app for it. There was a group working on an app for mortgage comparison. and another one working on an application for better form filling in order to save time for large organisations and indeed for government, cutting down on the amount of forms that have to be printed and reducing the amount of time that we spend queuing.
Finally, I recognise the sense of holistic pride that the ACT government has brought through its Brand Canberra campaign. Launched on 28 November, it features a new logo—CBR, standing for confident, bold and ready. It provides a framework through which to tell Canberra's story through five attributes: challenge, free spirit, ideas, quality of life and discovery. That positive message is one I believe pervades community groups in the ACT. It is not just a new logo, as the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister have acknowledged. As Chief Minister Katy Gallagher put it, it is also something that:
… gives us the tools to be able to tell others what a great city Canberra is—proud to be the capital of Australia and the centre of government, but also a confident and bold city.
The campaign has been praised by the ACT Chamber of Commerce and Industry and by the chair of the Canberra Business Council, Michelle Melbourne. I acknowledge too the work of Jamie Wilson and Warren Apps of Coordinate.
Too many Australians think of Canberra as being just the city of government, but it is in fact not just the national capital; it is the social capital of Australia. It is a place where voluntary organisations thrive and can thrive even more still. I pay tribute to the many volunteers here in the ACT and the organisations that sustain them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The time 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.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:5 4
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Education
(Question No. 2)
Ms MacTiernan asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 14 November 2013:
In respect of NAPLAN, administered under the Australian Curriculum Assessment Reporting Authority, (a) how were the minimum standards determined in 2007, (b) what is the basis for yearly changes in the scoring necessary to achieve the minimum standards, and (c) who is undertaking the current review of the minimum standards, what is the plan for consultation, and when is the report on the review expected.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) scale bands, including the National Minimum Standards (NMS), were developed during 2007 by the Australian Education Systems Officials' Committee (AESOC) NAPLAN Steering Group.
The Steering Group received advice from the Expert Advisory Group (comprising leading Australian measurement experts) and were also informed by existing state and territory literacy and numeracy assessment programs that preceded NAPLAN. The bands were endorsed by AESOC early in 2008.
The NMS for each year level is represented by a particular band on the ten band NAPLAN common scale. The skills described in the table at Attachment A represent those assessed in NAPLAN tests at the relevant NMS band level for each year level. This information is available at www.nap.edu.au.
(b) The NMS remain the same from year to year and do not change. The scoring processes of NAPLAN tests have also not changed from the inception of NAPLAN. The number of correct responses needed to meet or surpass the NMS may change from year to year depending upon the difficulty of the current test when it is compared with the initial 2008 NAPLAN test.
A well-established psychometric equating process is used to adjust for differences in the difficulty of the tests across years so that the results from different years can be reported on the same achievement scale.
(c) The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is reviewing a range of matters relating to reporting student performance as part of its ongoing work to align NAPLAN with the Australian Curriculum and transition to online testing. This work will also take account of results from and standards set for international testing programs in which Australia participates.
ACARA's work will take account of a request from the Council of Australian Governments in June 2012 to the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC) to give consideration to establishing 'proficient' NAPLAN standards, which would further strengthen focus on reporting student achievement across multiple levels.
In undertaking this work, ACARA will seek advice from its advisory, reference and working groups. These groups comprise departmental and school sector representatives, measurement experts, and representatives from other organisations. Advice on changes to the NAPLAN reporting process will be presented to the ACARA Board and SCSEEC during 2014 as part of the overall implementation of NAPLAN online.
Any change to the NMS and the process for reporting on student performance will require a decision from SCSEEC.
Attachment A
Skills assessed in NAPLAN tests at the relevant National Minimum Standard (NMS) band level for each year level
Year level (NMS Band) |
Reading |
Persuasive Writing |
Language Conventions |
Numeracy |
Year 3 (Band 2) |
Makes some meaning from short texts, such as simple reports and stories, which have some visual support. Makes connections between pieces of clearly stated information. |
Shows some audience awareness by the use of simple persuasive language; for example, I think ... because ... and by providing some information to support reader understanding. Uses some capital letters and full stops correctly. Correctly spells most simple words used in the writing. Some other one- and two-syllable words may also be correct. |
Identifies errors and correctly spells some words with simple spelling patterns. Recognises grammar and punctuation conventions in short sentences, such as the correct use of pronouns ( herself ). |
Doubles a whole number to solve a simple problem. Recognises a 2D shape within a pattern of different shapes. Visually compares the area of similar shapes. Locates a position of an object on a simple plan. |
Year 5 (Band 4) |
Makes inferences from clearly stated information in short factual texts and stories. Identifies the meaning of some unfamiliar words from their context. Finds specific information in longer stories and factual texts supported with tables and diagrams. |
Writes a persuasive text in which paragraphs are used to group like ideas and persuasive devices are used to attempt to convince a reader. Correctly punctuates some sentences with both capital letters and full stops. May demonstrate correct use of capitals for names and some other punctuation. Correctly spells most common words. |
Identifies errors and correctly spells some one- and two-syllable words with common spelling patterns ( cent, building ). Recognises grammar and punctuation conventions in short sentences and speech, such as the correct use of appropriate structure, descriptive phrases, abbreviations, brackets and commas in lists. |
Uses addition and subtraction to solve problems. Calculates money amounts using addition and subtraction. Identifies a prism displayed in an everyday context. Estimates the volume of liquid in a familiar container. Recognises attributes of 3D objects. Visualises a 3D model from a different perspective. |
Year 7 (Band 5) |
Uses clearly stated information in familiar text types to draw some conclusions and inferences. Draws conclusions about a character in narrative texts. Connects and sequences ideas in longer information texts and identifies opinions in persuasive texts. |
Structures a persuasive text to include an introduction and a body containing some related points of argument. Includes enough supporting detail for the writer's point of view to be easily understood by the reader, although the conclusion may be weak or simple. Correctly structures most simple and compound sentences and some complex sentences. |
Identifies errors and correctly spells one- and two-syllable words with common spelling patterns (grown, drafting, message). Recognises grammar and punctuation conventions in standard sentences and speech, such as the correct use of verb forms, synonyms, connecting words (however), brackets and apostrophes for contractions (he's). |
Applies a small range of strategies to solve problems. Calculates money amounts using multiplication and division. Calculates the missing value in a decimal multiplication equation. Estimates the size of an angle. Finds the chance of a simple event occurring. Uses knowledge of factors to solve problems. Compares and orders decimals with two decimal places. |
Year 9 (Band 6) |
Makes meaning from a range of text types of increasing difficulty and understands different text structures. Recognises the purpose of general text features such as titles and subheadings. Makes inferences by connecting ideas across different parts of texts. Interprets descriptive and figurative language and identifies the main difference between characters in narrative texts. |
Organises a persuasive text using focused paragraphs. Uses some effective persuasive devices and accurate words or groups of words when developing points of argument and ideas. Punctuates nearly all sentences correctly with capitals, full stops, exclamation marks and question marks. Correctly uses more complex punctuation marks some of the time. |
Identifies errors and correctly spells most words with common spelling patterns (record, disturb). Demonstrates knowledge of grammar and punctuation conventions in more complex texts, such as concise expression and the correct use of extended groups of adjectives, prepositions (from), commas to separate phrases and the stroke or forward slash (/). |
Solves number sentences that may include negative numbers. Identifies the rule describing a number pattern. Visualises the result of a single flip of an object. Interprets simple line graphs. Identifies area as the measurement attribute for a given situation. Identifies attributes of a 3D object including its net. |