The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PETITIONS
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Middle Head: Proposed Residential Care Facility
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of SaveMiddleHead.org representing citizens of Mosman, North Sydney and Australia draws to the attention of the House: (1) the Draft Management Plan for Middle Head Precinct and (2) proposed development of a 93-bed residential care facility at Middle Head.
We believe that the proposed development should NOT proceed as it would go against the fundamental principles behind the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (Trust), which includes:
preserving and protecting the environment and heritage values of Trust land,
maximizing public access to Trust land,
ensuring that management of Trust land contributes to enhancing the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region,
establishing and managing suitable Trust land as a park on behalf of the Commonwealth as the national government, and
co-operating with New South Wales, affected councils and the community in furthering the above objectives.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to ensure that the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust: (1) REJECTS the proposed residential development, (2) consults with the local community and other interested parties on alternative uses and (3) allocates sufficient funds to the Trust to reuse Platypus, Neutral Bay and 10 Terminal, Mosman, to protect and preserve public land from residential development in keeping with the Trust Act.
from 442 citizens
Petition received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01): Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Infrastructure
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter dated 2 January 2014 about a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding funding for the Hume Freeway interchange in Epping North, Victoria.
The Australian Government has committed almost $6.5 billion in road and rail infrastructure funding in Victoria under the Infrastructure Investment Programme from 2013-14 to 2018-19 and will continue to work closely with the Victorian Government to determine priorities that will improve transport infrastructure in Victoria.
Any road infrastructure proposals, such as those listed in the petition, must be put forward by the Victorian Government to the Australian Government for any funding contribution. As such, I encourage the Member for Scullin, the Hon Andrew Giles MP, the City of Whittlesea and local residents and businesses to continue to make representations to the Victorian Government seeking funding for this project.
I trust this information will be of assistance.
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Truss
WTO Emergency Safeguard and Industry Survival
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letters of 2 January 2014 regarding the petition presented on 21 November 2013 (reference 804/1279) and the petition presented on 12 December 2013 (reference 835/1302) on the separate safeguard investigations into imported processed fruit and tomato products. I regret the delay in replying.
The Productivity Commission's (the Commission's) final reports of its separate investigations into imports of processed fruit products and processed tomato products were tabled in Parliament and publicly released by the Australian Government on 20 December 2013. The Commission is Australia's designated body for undertaking safeguard inquiries and for determining whether safeguard measures are appropriate.
Australia's safeguard procedures reflect our World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. To impose a WTO consistent Emergency Safeguard Measure serious injury must be caused, or threatened to be caused, to the industry by increased imports of the product concerned and not by 'other factors'.
The Commission found that safeguard measures on imports of processed fruit products and processed tomato products were not warranted. While the Commission acknowledged that SPC Ardmona has suffered serious injury in recent years in both its tomato processing and processed fruit operations, it found that this injury was not caused by a recent surge of imports but by a combination of other factors. These included long-term reductions in consumer demand, reduced export volumes, rising unit costs of domestic production, developments in supermarket private label strategies, and extreme weather events.
The Government also carefully considered SPC Ardmona's request for assistance. The Government concluded that it is not the role of Government to provide financial assistance to private businesses and that industry reform, including business restructuring, needs to be led by industry. The Government's role is more appropriately focused on providing the framework conducive to creating a stronger and more competitive business environment for business to flourish.
The Government recognizes the importance of agriculture and the food and beverage manufacturing sector and believes both have a prime place in our nation's future and will work to ensure Australia's food security by creating a stronger and more competitive agricultural sector. To this end, the Government has commissioned a White Paper on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector. This will set out a clear, well-defined and transparent approach to promote more investment and jobs growth. The Terms of Reference are available at www.agriculturalcompetitiveness.dpmc.gov.au.
Thank you (once again) for bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. I trust that this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Trade and Investment, Mr Robb
Falun Gong
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter of 31 January 2014 drawing my attention to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
The Australian Government considers that China's ban on Falun Gong and its treatment of practitioners are in breach of international human rights standards.
The Government is also aware of claims of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. Those claims, if true, would be deeply disturbing. While we believe that there is insufficient credible evidence to support the Falun Gong-specific allegations, there is little doubt that organs have been harvested from executed prisoners for use in medical transplants. Australia strongly opposes this practice.
The Government has raised concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners and about reports of organs being harvested from executed prisoners with China on numerous occasions, most recently during the 15th Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue held in Beijing on 20 February 2014.
I trust that this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Julie Bishop
Asylum Seekers
Asylum seekers detained by the Australian Government in offshore and onshore detention centres
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter of 2 January 2014 concerning a petition recently submitted for consideration by the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding various matters related to asylum seekers. Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government announced that under Operation Sovereign Borders, all illegal maritime arrivals entering Australian waters by boat without a visa will be liable for offshore processing and resettlement in Nauru or Papua New Guinea (PNG). This is one of the government's measures intended to deter people smugglers by denying them a product to sell to often vulnerable people.
The offshore processing centres (OPCs) are managed and administered under Nauruan and PNG law, with support from Australia. Asylum seekers transferred to Nauru and PNG OPCs will have their protection claims processed in accordance with the respective laws of Nauru and PNG. The government has provided a package of assistance to the governments of Nauru and PNG to build their capacity to assess protection claims and undertake refugee status determination.
Transferees found to be refugees will be resettled in Nauru, PNG and any other participating regional states. Transferees found not to be owed protection will be returned to their country of origin or to a third country where they have the right to reside.
Children, families, pregnant women, single adult males and unaccompanied minors will be transferred to offshore processing centres where there are appropriate support services to meet their needs. Education arrangements for children have been made.
The government is conscious of the need to ensure people are not held in immigration detention for long periods. The time taken to undertake relevant processing can be affected by a number of factors, including difficulty in satisfactorily determining a detainee's identity, complexity of claims, developments in country information and finalisation of other immigration related criteria such as the security clearance process.
Placement decisions are made with consideration to each individual's circumstances and risks, with a view to seeking a balance between the best interests of the individuals, particularly children and vulnerable persons, and operational and security factors. This may include:
the individual's character, any identity and security issues, age and family composition, health and wellbeing;
any unique or exceptional circumstances;
their cooperation with immigration processes; and
the likelihood of the persons compliance with any conditions (such as reporting regularly, staying at the specified address and not working).
The community detention programme is supported by peak welfare bodies, refugee, church and other community organisations. The Australian Red Cross is the main contracted agency for community detention services. In light of the growth in the community detention programme, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has contracted a number of additional service providers to assist with accommodation and case support services for unaccompanied minors, families with young children and other vulnerable people. Support includes torture and trauma counselling and help to meet basic welfare needs.
These service providers are experienced in the administration of community care and welfare services for detainees. They are funded to provide housing, residential/out-of-home care for unaccompanied minors, case workers, an allowance to meet daily living costs and a range of activities. Activities may include volunteering opportunities as well as English classes. In line with community standards, children in the programme have access to schooling.
The department works and consults closely with other government agencies and organisations to ensure appropriate arrangements and supports are in place. We will continue to monitor these arrangements.
The government considers immigration detention to be an essential element of a managed migration system and effective border control. Those subject to mandatory detention include:
unauthorised arrivals for management of health, identity and security risks to the community;
unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community; and
unlawful non-citizens who repeatedly refuse to comply with their visa conditions.
Detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable and the length and conditions of detention, including the appropriateness of both the accommodation and the services provided, are subject to regular review.
As you would appreciate, the management of asylum seekers who have been issued with adverse security assessments raises a number of complex policy issues, principal among which is ensuring Australia's national security balanced with its duty of care to the health and wellbeing of all people in immigration detention.
The government has determined that, as a matter of policy, people who have been assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to be directly or indirectly a risk to security will remain in held immigration detention, until such time as resettlement in a third country or removal is practicable.
The department is working with other agencies to identify long-term outcomes for individuals issued with an Adverse Security Assessment (ASA); consistent with Australia's international obligations not to return a person to a country where they may be harmed. Third country resettlement may be an option for some individuals, however, due to the complex nature of these cases, securing durable outcomes is likely to be a lengthy process.
In accordance with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, ASIO does not provide visa applicants with the information that underpins a security assessment because doing so would reveal details about ASIO's intelligence capability and modus operandi. However, individuals are advised of the outcome of their security assessment and are able to appeal to the Federal or High Court for judicial review of the assessment.
Additionally, ASIO is subject to oversight by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. The Inspector General of Intelligence and Security is an important accountability mechanism for ASIO which operates independently of the government and has extensive investigatory powers. Any individual can make a complaint to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security about ASIO, including asylum seekers in detention.
The Hon Margaret Stone has been appointed by the Attorney-General as Independent Reviewer of ASAs. The Reviewer's role is to review ASIO ASAs given to the department in relation to people who remain in immigration detention and have been found by the department to:
1. engage Australia's protection obligations under international law; and
2. not be eligible for a permanent protection visa, or who have had their permanent protection visa cancelled.
The Independent Reviewer will examine the materials used by ASIO, including any submissions made by the applicant in support of their application. There will also be a regular 12 month periodic review of ASA for refugees in immigration detention. The Independent Reviewer will provide recommendations to the Director-General of Security and report these findings to the
Attorney-General, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
The safety of the Australian community is the government's primary concern. It is not considered appropriate for individuals who have been assessed as a risk to security to be placed in the community.
I trust the information provided is helpful.
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Morrison
National Broadband Network
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter dated 2 January 2014, concerning a petition lodged with the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the rollout of NBN Co's radio network in the Yarras, Clear Creek and Glanmire areas of New South Wales (NSW).
In order to address the concerns of the petitioners, I have sought to deal with each point raised in the petition below separately. It should also be noted that NBN Co was consulted on the matters raised in the petition. The information provided by NBN Co has been reflected in my response.
Failure to consult the local community
Approvals for the installation of freestanding towers, such as the proposed monopole at 968 Limekiln Road, Yarras NSW, are subject to state and territory government planning laws. In NSW, new freestanding towers of this kind generally fall under the State Environment Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPPI). As such, NBN Co is required to follow the processes for community and local government consultations set out in the planning scheme.
NBN Co has advised that consultation regarding this site complied with these requirements and went beyond them. In particular this involved contacting properties, whose boundaries are within 500 metres of the proposed facility, not just those adjoining the site. On 30 July 2013, 14 households were notified in writing of the proposal. In addition, a sign was placed on the proposed site. On 2 August 2013, a public notice was published in the Western Advocate. Only one objection was received during the consultation process. In light of the objection, the original closing date for consultation was extended from 14 August 2013 to 30 August 2013.
The proposed site is under flight paths to Bathurst Airport
NBN Co has notified Bathurst City Council, as owner and operator of the airport, of the proposed fixed wireless tower in this area. Bathurst City Council has passed on the details to both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Air Services Australia. NBN Co will comply with any recommendations or findings that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority or Air Services Australia may make.
Provide for a reasonable response period
As stated above, NBN Co went beyond the community and local government consultations requirements set out in the planning scheme. In light of an objection made during the consultation period, NBN Co extended the consultation period by two weeks—taking it to a total of five weeks. In addition to this, NBN Co has advised that it has continued to respond to concerns raised by the person who made the objection well after the consultation period had closed.
A formal complaints process, including the appointment of a neutral body
As the installation is subject to state planning law, complaint processes are a matter for that regime. If petitioners have concerns about the NSW planning regime, those concerns are best raised with the NSW Government.
Investigation of alternative sites greater than one kilometre from any home
Site selection is an operational matter for carriers, including NBN Co. In selecting a site for a tower, a range of factors need to be considered including the area to be covered, its geography and the availability of suitable sites. NBN Co has advised that it selected the proposed site as the location is elevated and provides the potential for coverage to extend over a number of communities. Other sites did not satisfy NBN Co's coverage objectives or construction requirements. The facilities need to be located close to the community they are servicing.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), within the Health portfolio, is the government agency responsible for advising about electromagnetic energy (EME) emissions. ARPANSA sets public health standards for exposure to EME. All facilities need to operate below the EME exposure standards (see below), so there is no need for a buffer zone for this reason. Placement of facilities is otherwise a matter for planning laws.
Co-location with existing wireless as an alternative
Under Commonwealth law, carriers are encouraged to co-locate their facilities where this is an option. However, the ability to do so is dependent on operational considerations including the availability of space on the tower, coverage needs and available spectrum. In some instances, these considerations may mean that co-location is not technically possible. NBN Co has advised that in this case, there were no suitable existing facilities that could meet its coverage objectives.
Impacts on environment and ambiance
NBN Co seeks to strike a balance between providing valuable communications services and minimising any visual impact on the community and local environment. NBN Co fixed wireless towers need to be located in, or near, the area for which they are designed to provide service coverage. While radio antennas need to be elevated above their surroundings to provide reliable, unbroken, communications, NBN Co proposes and designs its facilities to the minimum height necessary to provide good service to the local community. Subject to operational needs, NBN Co also seeks to maximise the distance of its proposed facility from the nearest adjoining landowners, so as to reduce any visual intrusion. NBN Co also seeks to take advantage of any screening that can be provided by mature vegetation. NBN Co has advised that the proposed facility is approximately 650 metres from the nearest residence. Ultimately, concerns in this area need to be considered during planning processes.
Effect on land values
The rollout of better broadband services is designed to improve services in a community and therefore improve social amenity. This may improve property values. In all instances, however, I expect any impacts on property land values would be considered under state and territory planning processes.
Health concerns
Further to the comment above, ARPANSA, within the Health portfolio, is the Government agency responsible for advising about EME emissions. ARPANSA sets public health standards for exposure to EME. The relevant ARPANSA standard is the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields—3kHz to 300GHz (2002) (the ARPANSA Standard).
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) radiocommunication licensing regime obligates licensees of radio transmitters to ensure that the operation of their facilities do not exceed the general public exposure limits of the ARPANSA Standard at places accessible to the general public. All fixed wireless base stations in Australia must comply with ARPANSA exposure limits.
The ARPANSA exposure limits are set well below the level at which adverse health effects are known to occur. The ARPANSA Standard is based upon international best practice and is consistent with guidelines published by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which have been adopted by many countries.
Fixed wireless base stations produce low EME levels in the everyday environment. Sample measurements of typical transmitter sites show that the signal levels on the ground near towers are a very low percentage of the general public limits of the ARPANSA Standard. ARPANSA advises that the standards are applicable for all types of radio transmission within the stated frequency limits, including wireless broadband technologies, and do not need to be revised when new technologies are introduced.
Before wireless base stations are built, carriers produce a report that shows the predicted maximum levels of EME at ground level around the new facility. The Radio Frequency National Site Archive website at www.rfnsa.com.au contains an Internet archive of fixed wireless base stations and radiocommunication facilities in Australia. The predicted maximum level of exposure from the proposed facility has been calculated at 0.012 per cent of that allowed under the ARPANSA Standard. A copy of the report is attached for the information of the Committee. It should be noted that predicted EME levels are for a base station operating at its highest capacity and assumes that all transmitters are working at full rated power. In reality, base stations typically operate below full rated power levels.
ARPANSA has produced a factsheet on NBN wireless base stations and the health effects of these base stations. A copy of the factsheet is also attached for the Committee's information and is otherwise available to download at www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_nbn.cfm.
ARPANSA maintains continual oversight of emerging research into the potential health effects of EME emissions in order to provide accurate and up-to-date advice to the government and the Australian people. It has been conducting a review of relevant research literature. Its report is expected shortly. Should scientific evidence indicate that the current ARPANSA Standard does not adequately protect the health of Australians, the Government would take immediate action to rectify the situation.
Further information about EME is available on www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/electromagnetic-radiation, which is a site managed by the ACMA. If the Committee or petitioners would like to contact ARPANSA, its website is www.arpansa.gov.au or phone on 1800 022 333.
Conclusion—petitioners request to the House of Representatives
In conclusion, I would like to respond to the petitioners request that the House extend the consultation time associated with the construction of this fixed wireless facility, identify alternative sites which are greater than 1,000 metres from any home, and appoint a neutral body to collate and assess objections.
While I recognise the petitioners concerns regarding the construction of this facility, I suggest that the House does not consider these matters requested by the petitioners further. These matters are primarily concerns with the NSW planning regime and the consultation process under it. NBN Co has followed these closely and gone beyond them. It has also considered the feasibility of alternative sites. The proposed facility will also operate well below EME exposure standards. Should petitioners concerns regarding planning processes continue, they should be raised with the NSW Government.
Thank you for bringing the concerns of the petitioners from the Yarras, Clear Creek and Glanmire areas of NSW to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
from the Minister for Communications, Mr Turnbull
Age Pension
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your correspondence of 2 January 2014 regarding the petition on increases to the rate of age pension and health care and aged care issues for pensioners. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I note you have also referred this petition to the Minister for Social Services, the Hon Kevin Andrews MP, who is the Minister with responsibility for the majority of elements contained within this petition. I am limiting my response to the question pertaining to the availability of health care for pensioners (question 2).
In 2012-13, a total of $18.6 billion was paid in Medicare benefits (an increase of 5.3 per cent on 2011-12) for more than 343 million Medicare services (an increase of 3.4 per cent). This represents approximately 15 services and $797 in benefits for every Australian.
The Australian Government provides a wide range of taxpayer funded health services, some of which particularly benefit pensioners. These include:
Medicare bulk billing services improves access to health services. All practitioners, who provide Medicare eligible services, have the facility to bulk bill patients.
In addition, the Government offers direct incentives for bulk billing specific to need groups, including Commonwealth Concession Card holders.
To encourage bulk billing, Medicare provides additional incentives to GPs who bulk bill cardholders. These payments are currently $6.00 for GPs providing services in metropolitan areas and $9.10 in regional, rural and remote areas and all of Tasmania. In the 2012-13, 86.6 per cent of all non-referred GP attendances were bulk billed in New South Wales. For concession cardholders, Medicare benefits covered more than 94 per cent of fees charged for services. More than 97 per cent of fees charged for GP services provided to people with a concession card were covered by Medicare benefits paid.
The Extended Medicare Safety Net (EMSN) provides an additional rebate for Australian families and singles, including pensioners, who have out-of-pocket costs for Medicare eligible out-of-hospital services once an annual threshold in out-of-pocket costs has been met.
There are two thresholds for the EMSN. These thresholds are indexed by the Consumer Price Index on 1 January each year. The 2014 annual EMSN thresholds are:
$624.10 for Commonwealth concession cardholders, including those with a Pensioner Concession Card, a Health Care Card or a Commonwealth Seniors Card, and people who are eligible for Family Tax Benefits (Part A); and
$1,248.70 for all other singles and families.
Out-of-hospital services include GP and specialist attendances, as well as many pathology and diagnostic imaging services. Once the relevant annual threshold has been met, Medicare will pay for 80 per cent of any future out-of-pocket costs for Medicare eligible out-of-hospital services for the remainder of the calendar year, except for a small number of services where an upper limit or 'EMSN benefit cap' applies.
States and territories are the current providers of public dental services which provide free or low-cost dental care to Pensioner Concession Card and Health Care Card holders.
The Australian Government is supporting continued funding to the states and territories for adult public dental services. The National Partnership Agreement on Treating More Public Dental Patients provides the states and territories with a total of $344 million in funding over three years to provide services to public dental patients.
The Commonwealth funding will help holders of a Pensioner Concession Card to get treatment sooner.
The Office of Hearing Services, issues vouchers to eligible clients under the Australian Government Hearing Services Programme (the Programme), so they can access a range of hearing services. These services may include:
a comprehensive hearing assessment performed by a hearing practitioner;
access to a wide range of quality, free to client hearing devices;
advice on how to achieve maximum benefit from a device if fitted;
further support and hearing rehabilitation services, which can be accessed even if a hearing device is not suitable to the individual's hearing needs; and
access to an optional annual maintenance agreement where, for a small fee, repairs and batteries are made available to support hearing devices.
All services delivered under the Programme are provided by hearing practitioners with appropriate skills.
All Pensioner Concession Card holders are entitled to apply for a Hearing Services Voucher which entitles them to a free hearing test if they are an Australian Citizen or permanent resident 21 years or older. Other people entitled to a voucher include those:
receiving Sickness Allowance from Centrelink;
holding a Gold Repatriation Health Card issued for all conditions;
holding a White Repatriation Health Card issued for conditions that include hearing loss;
dependents of a person in one of the above categories;
who are members of the Australian Defence Force; or
undergoing an Australian Government funded disability management services and referred by their disability employment services case manager.
The Australian Government appreciates the need to ensure all Australians have access to comprehensive and appropriate eye care. The Government also understands that eye care can be quite expensive, especially for pensioners and other people who are on a low income. To help patients with these costs, the Government provides a payment in the form of a Medicare rebate for a variety of optical services.
'Participating' optometrists who have signed a Common Form of Undertaking for Participating Optometrists with the Australian Government agree to not charge more than the Medicare Benefits Schedule fee for services covered by Medicare. The two exceptions are for comprehensive initial consultation within 24 months of a previous comprehensive initial consultation by another optometrist and for domiciliary visits.
The purpose of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is to provide reliable, timely and affordable access to a wide range of medicines for all eligible Australians. Over 4,700 branded products are currently subsidised on the PBS, which cost the Australian Government approximately $9 billion in 2012-13.
The PBS assists concessional patients, such as pensioners, to reduce their expenditure on medicines, through the co-payment arrangements. These arrangements offer substantial price subsidies for PBS medicines. A concessional patient need only pay $6.00 for a PBS prescription in 2014, even though the medicine may cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars for each supply. The Australian Government uses taxpayers' funds to cover the remaining cost. Around 80 per cent of PBS subsidised prescriptions dispensed at community pharmacies are for concessional patients.
Further assistance is provided under the PBS safety net arrangements. When a concessional patient reaches the PBS safety net ($360.00 in 2014), further PBS prescriptions are usually dispensed at no cost to the patient, for the remainder of the calendar year.
Some people choose to take out private health insurance to provide additional cover for a range of medical and ancillary services. This Government supports private health insurance as an important complement to our public health system.
The Government provides an income tested rebate to help people meet the costs of private health insurance. The Government provides a higher rebate to Australians over the age of 65, depending on their income.
from the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport, Mr Dutton
School Chaplaincy
Dear Dr Jensen,
Thank you for your letter of 31 January 2014 to the Hon Christopher Pyne MP, Minister for Education, concerning a petition for the maintenance of school chaplaincy funding. As the matter you have raised falls within my portfolio responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, your letter was referred to me for response.
The Government acknowledges the valuable contribution school chaplains make to the wellbeing of our school communities and the tremendous commitment of school chaplains who support thousands of students and families across Australia.
The current National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program aims to support school communities that wish to access the services of a school chaplain or student welfare worker. It is a voluntary programme that assists school communities to support the wellbeing of their students, including strengthening values and providing greater pastoral care.
The school chaplaincy programme was introduced by the Coalition Government in 2006. Since 2007, a total of $429.8 million has been allocated to the chaplaincy programme, providing support to approximately 3800 participating government and non-government schools nationwide.
The previous government did not allocate funding to the programme beyond 2014. The Government is currently giving consideration to the future of the programme and its funding.
In regards to the current High Court challenge to the programme, the Government is preparing its defence in this matter. In the meantime, chaplaincy services are continuing to be provided under the programme in schools across Australia.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the Government's attention.
from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr Ryan
PETITIONS
Statements
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:03): Madam Speaker, last week, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions, my statement covered the origins of Australia’s petitioning system, and I stressed the importance of petitions meeting the standing order requirements, to help ensure they get the benefits of petitioning the House. Today, I will continue to outline the practicalities of petitioning and speak about the role and responsibilities of members.
Members have an important role to play in assisting constituents to engage in the House’s petitioning process, although standing orders prohibit members from being a principal petitioner and from signing a petition to the House. Constituents often approach their members' offices for advice on preparing and/or presenting a petition to the House. So it is important to be aware that petitions to the House must meet the requirements of standing orders. Information about petitioning the House, including a sample petition, is available on the petitions committee’s webpages, and all petitions must be considered by the Petitions Committee, to certify whether they meet standing order requirements, before being presented in the House or Federation Chamber. Prospective petitioners who seek assistance early—that is, before they collect signatures—will be in the best position to ensure that their petitions comply with the House’s requirements. I invite members and their staff to direct prospective petitioners to the Petitions Committee secretariat for assistance.
While the minimum number of signatures required for a petition is one, that of the principal petitioner, most petitioners gather more than that. Gathering additional signatures is often a worthwhile exercise for petitioners who wish to engage with their communities on the matter they are raising and to demonstrate the level of support in the community for the issue. Once the principal petitioner—the coordinator and contact person for the petition—has completed their petition, they can forward it either directly to the Petitions Committee secretariat or through their federal member.
Whenever members receive petitions on behalf of constituents they should forward them to the Petitions Committee for consideration before they are presented in the House. Petitions that are found to meet the requirements can then obtain the benefit of a ministerial response, after they have been formally presented. When providing a petition to the committee secretariat for consideration, members should indicate whether the petitioners wish for them to present the petition—subject to the petition meeting House requirements—or whether it is to be presented by me as chair.
Madam Speaker, as you know, standing orders provide that petitions can be presented by me, as chair of the Petitions Committee, during this timeslot on sitting Mondays or by a member at the times allowed in the standing orders. Members may choose to present a petition themselves so that they can discuss the subject of the petition when they present it to the House. The opportunities for members to present petitions are during 90-second statements or an adjournment debate in the House or Federation Chamber and members’ constituency statements or a grievance debate in the Federation Chamber.
Original petitions that meet House requirements are returned to a member if that member has agreed to present them. Following presentation, the committee will usually refer the petition to the relevant minister. If a petition is on the same topic as one that has recently been referred to the minister, the later petition may not be referred. The principal petitioner and presenting member will be provided with a copy of the minister’s response, and a copy will be made available on the committee’s webpage, after it has been considered by the committee and presented to the House.
Some members may still wish to present a petition that has not met petition requirements, as a ‘document’. If that is the case, the member must obtain the leave of the House before presenting the document. These documents do not attract the benefits of the petitioning system and will not be referred to a relevant minister for response.
When members and their staff assist constituents to engage with the petitioning system, and when members present their constituents’ petitions, they may or may not agree with the contents. What is important is that in doing so members are performing a role in keeping with the historic nature of petitioning the House and the House’s respect for freedom of speech.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:08): I rise to present a report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on the 2012-13 annual reports of bodies established under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.
Section 243 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act specifies the duties of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which include to examine each annual report that is prepared by a body established by the ASIC Act. The report on the 2012-13 annual reports has been prepared in accordance with section 243 of the ASIC Act.
For this report, the committee examined the 2012-13 annual reports of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Companies, Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, the Financial Reporting Council, and the Takeovers Panel.
The committee examines the annual reports prepared by ASIC as part of the committee's ongoing oversight of it. Accordingly, the annual report of ASIC is not considered in this report.
The committee has made a number of observations and recommendations in this report. Several of the bodies did not implement changes to annual reports previously requested by this committee and the Senate Economics Committee. The committee has therefore made explicit recommendations to the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board, the Takeovers Panel, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Australian Accounting Standards Board. The Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee has implemented suggestions from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee.
Amendments to the Corporations Legislation Amendment Act 2012 significantly changed the Financial Reporting Council's role within the financial reporting framework, repealing its auditor independence functions and refocusing it to provide strategic policy advice. In addition, the Financial Reporting Council's strategic analysis of Australia's financial reporting framework identified significant changes to threats and weaknesses faced by Australia's financial reporting system. The committee will continue to monitor the new role and changing environment of the Financial Reporting Council.
In its annual report, the Financial Reporting Council identified deficiencies in the financial literacy of some cohorts of Australian directors. The committee is pleased the Financial Reporting Council has initiated measures to mitigate those deficiencies. The committee has recommended that the council also implement regular surveys in order to monitor the effectiveness of the measures. The committee is pleased that the Takeovers Panel annual report indicates a substantial reduction of time between a panel decision and the publication of reasons. These improvements are likely to be due to the recent changes to the ASIC regulations.
The committee also noted the following trends which it will continue to monitor: firstly, a continuing increase in the number of applications being dismissed by the Takeovers Panel; secondly, a decline in the caseload of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board; and, thirdly, a surge in projects being undertaken by the Australian Accounting Standards Board as a result of the work program developed by the International Accounting Standards Board.
I would also like to note the wind-up of the Financial Reporting Panel in October 2012. As the Financial Reporting Panel had no activity to report for 2012-13, all operations were covered in its final 2011-12 report. The committee considered the final annual report for the panel in its previous report on annual reports.
In reviewing the annual reports, the committee also considers whether there are opportunities to strengthen the operations of the corporations legislation, however, no changes are recommended at this time. The committee considered the 2012-13 annual reports generally satisfactory and we would like to thank officials of the organisations involved for their continuing cooperation, and the secretariat for their assistance in preparing the report. The committee holds its next oversight hearing with ASIC and the Takeovers Panel this Friday, 28 March, and will continue to pursue a number of the issues discussed in these reports and raised today. I commend this report and its recommendations to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
M1-M2 Link
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (10:13): This is one of the most pleasurable opportunities for me as a member of the House of Representatives, to move a motion commending the government for fulfilling a promise it took to the people at the last federal election with the announcement of the $3 billion plan for the M1-M2 link, to be named NorthConnex. I move:
That this House:
(1) commends the Government for fulfilling the promise it took to the people at the last federal election with the announcement of the $3 billion M1-M2 Link, ‘NorthConnex’;
(2) notes that:
(a) investment in infrastructure is a crucial component for economic growth; and
(b) the Government:
(i) is delivering on its commitment to build the M1-M2 Link; and
(ii) gives credit to the New South Wales Government and Transurban for their role in this development; and
(3) recognises:
(a) that the M1-M2 Link is a greatly needed piece of infrastructure and is the missing link in Sydney’s transport system;
(b) the benefits that the link will provide in reducing travel time, traffic congestion and pollution, and providing safer roads; and
(c) that this infrastructure will not only benefit the people of North-West Sydney and the central coast, but will have a flow on effect to all areas of Sydney.
This motion notes that investment in infrastructure is a crucial component to economic growth, that the government is delivering on its commitment to build the M1-M2 link and gives credit to the New South Wales government and Transurban for their role in this development. It recognises that this is important and greatly-needed infrastructure that provides benefits in reducing travel times, traffic congestion and pollution and provides for safer roads. This infrastructure will not only benefit the people of North-West Sydney and the Central Coast but will allow a flow-on effect to all areas of Sydney.
Isn't it a great day when you can move a motion commending major infrastructure of this type that will be delivered in the next five years or so? I have been waiting for a long time to be able to comment in this positive way. I note that on 27 May last year I was still complaining in this House about the lack of action in relation to addressing Pennant Hills Road, as I know it. When I first moved to Pennant Hills Road 50 or 60 years ago or more, there were a mere two lanes running through Pennant Hills in each direction. It was still the only major way of reaching the Central Coast and north of Sydney, but the amount of traffic that was carried required little more. But over the years we have seen a growth in traffic. We have seen a major piece of infrastructure required that should have been built years ago, yet it has been left.
I always suspected that one of the reasons it was left may have been that the area supported me and my predecessors so strongly that governments, maybe, felt they did not need to put money into this development. It may be that they saw the national interest. It may be that, as with the Labor Party when they started to focus on this, it was relevant to marginal seats on the Central Coast. But, whatever it is, this is a very significant and important development. It affects my electorate, which carries the burden of this piece of infrastructure. It affects electorates surrounding me: Mitchell, Bradfield, Dobell and Robertson. I notice the member for Reid here. His constituents who travel north would be very much affected by the lack of opportunity to be able to move other than on a congested highway where they have to traverse numerous traffic lights and are frequently held up by trucks breaking down or involved in major accidents.
The problem is that this has been the missing link in infrastructure in our great city of Sydney. I often used to speak on this, and I look at the speech that I gave back in May last year. I would talk about the way in which roads cross Sydney north to south and south to north. The M7 freeway, the Cumberland Highway, Woodville Road and Silverwater Road—each of these major pieces of infrastructure—joined at one place: the junction of the M2 and Pennant Hills Road at West Pennant Hills. Then there were the mere three lanes in each direction on Pennant Hills Road that everybody would have to traverse. There is no other route. There was only this route. To address it was a major missing link in the critical infrastructure for Sydney and, so far as I am concerned, unless this were addressed Sydney was going to be a major block to trade between Melbourne and Brisbane. It is the only real thoroughfare for vehicles to be able to traverse this passage through Sydney.
While the Labor Party were in office—I forget for how long, but decades in the New South Wales government and another 11½ years or so in which they were in office federally—I always lamented that nobody was prepared to turn their mind to this issue. When the Labor Party came into office in 2007, I thought when they wanted to spend money on critical infrastructure that they might have wanted to do something about Pennant Hills Road. If the plans had been developed and were ready, they might have been able to do so, but nobody had seen fit to do any of the engineering or design work or, essentially, to settle on what might need to be done. Instead of expending money on pink batts and the like, we could have had critical infrastructure pursued if the Labor Party had been ready.
The only time I heard the Labor Party talk about Pennant Hills Road was when the former minister, Mr Albanese, identified it as possibly relevant to the Central Coast seats. So, before an election they were about to lose they suddenly discovered that there might be a need to do something about Pennant Hills Road. I must say that the Howard government, back in 2007, made a commitment to a $1.5 billion investment to address this problem. It was not unknown to the Howard government that this is something that needed to be addressed. For my part I was particularly pleased that in August last year, under Tony Abbott as leader, the coalition committed to this missing link and is now delivering on it. We have a situation where the coalition government, the New South Wales government and Transurban, who have identified this as a major shortfall in the infrastructure in New South Wales, have committed to a joint public-private partnership to build this long-awaited link. It was an important matter for me when the Prime Minister announced in the last few weeks that construction would begin within at least 12 months, and possibly this year.
This proposal means there will be a tunnel that could take something like 5,000 trucks a day off Pennant Hills Road. It will reduce the travel time for travellers on that road by something in the order of 15 minutes. It will cut out something like 21 sets of traffic lights on Pennant Hills Road. The building of the tunnel on this link will mean that people can drive from Newcastle to Melbourne without a traffic light. It will make travelling on Pennant Hills Road much safer for my constituents. We have had numerous accidents on this road that have been life threatening. The tunnel will be good for the environment as there will be fewer cars and less pollution, because the cars will be able to travel much more quickly. I am pleased that the proposal is for three lanes. While it initially will not be used in that way—one of them will be a breakdown lane—the way in which it can be expanded in the future is particularly important.
I want to thank our Prime Minister, Minister Warren Truss, Barry O'Farrell and my colleagues who represent seats in and around this area for their support in ensuring that this important development is going to be able to proceed. For those who have been suffering for so long this is a worthwhile advance, a very significant improvement in the amenity of north-west Sydney, and I am delighted that it is going to be delivered by coalition governments in New South Wales and Canberra.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Laundy: I second the motion.
Debate interrupted.
M1-M2 Link
Reference to Federation Chamber
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate in this chamber has expired. In accordance with the determination of the Selection Committee, the resumption of the debate is to be made an order of the day for a later hour this day in the Federation Chamber.
Debate adjourned.
ABC and SBS
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (10:23): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) since 1 July 1932 when ABC Radio first came on air, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), created by the Australian Parliament, has played an integral and essential role in serving communities from all corners of the Australian Federation;
(b) the ABC and more recently, the Special Broadcasting Corporation (SBS), have played a key role in facilitating the evolution of a diverse but cohesive Australian polity, contributed significantly to the creation of a distinctive Australian identity, and been a critical guarantor of the quality and strength of Australian democracy;
(c) the ABC's Charter states the broadcaster shall 'contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the diversity of the Australian community';
(d) public broadcasting plays an irreplaceable role in delivering a range of services that have not been provided and are not likely to be provided by private media organisations, including high quality educational children's television, comprehensive emergency services broadcasts, non English language and multicultural programming, and comprehensive coverage of major civic and sporting events, and democratic processes;
(e) the news, information, entertainment, and emergency service announcements provided by the ABC are of particular importance in regional and remote communities across Australia;
(f) the ABC has a longstanding and established reputation, based on public opinion data and independent analysis, as the most trusted and trustworthy source of television and radio news in Australia;
(g) the conservative think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has called for the breakup and/or privatisation of the ABC and SBS; and
(h) on the day before the election, on 6 September 2013, speaking live to SBS from Penrith football stadium, the Prime Minister said, 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS'; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) confirm the Prime Minister's clear and unequivocal commitment that there will be no cuts to the ABC or SBS;
(b) cease its unwarranted, politically motivated vilification of the ABC as a news organisation, and its baseless criticism of the ABC's organisational independence and integrity;
(c) respect the ABC's mandate to provide innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services, which in this digital age includes many platforms and cannot be confined to radio and television; and
(d) uphold the ABC and SBS Acts in respect of the arms length, merit based, and consultative protocols used for the appointment of ABC and SBS Board members.
I am very pleased to bring this motion forward for debate and discussion, because the ABC and SBS are such a critical part of our national life and identity and because, since the election of the Abbott government, we have seen a concerted assault on our public broadcasters in the form of a campaign of veiled and not so veiled threats in relation to funding and in the form of intimidation towards news organisations that dare hold politicians to account.
The ABC and SBS are each in their own way cornerstones of Australian life. They are not just two of a range of media options. Instead, they have a fundamentally different and distinctive character and purpose from other community based and commercial media platforms. They inform and education, question and analyse, celebrate and entertain, and they do so without fear or favour and without compromising quality or content as a result of any undue market pressure or the influence of ownership.
The focus of our national and multicultural broadcasters is squarely on the needs and interests of the Australian community. As a migrant nation where fully one-quarter of our population was born outside Australia and some 43 per cent of Australians have at least one parent born overseas, the importance and value of multicultural and foreign language broadcasting is plain. But, perhaps most importantly of all, in recognition that a healthy democracy depends on an informed public and on high-quality, independent journalism, public broadcasting is essential for its proven capacity to be the most reliable source of news and current affairs. When you look at Essential Media's survey on media trustworthiness in news and current affairs from 2013, 73 per cent of Australians trusted ABC TV and 70 per cent trusted ABC radio, whereas only 46 per cent trusted commercial TV and 44 per cent trusted commercial radio—the gap is stark. And for those who suggest the internet's range of media options is fast making traditional news sources like the ABC and SBS less relevant and less important, it is salient to note that only 40 per cent trusted news and opinion websites and 23 per cent trusted blogs.
I grew up in rural Western Australia and I can tell you that in the country and in the regions the ABC is part of your household in the same way that water pipes and taps are part of your household: it is a lifeline—precious and essential. The ABC is there on the kitchen radio in the morning and through the television news after dinner at night; kids watch high-quality children's programming uninterrupted by advertising; farmers, like my parents in Donnybrook, and workers alike tune in for weather and emergency warnings; people tune in for local, national and international sport; and they tune in for news about their part of Australia—for their stories and voices. The maintenance of news bureaus and journalists with a capacity to cover and give voice to stories from right across this massive and sparsely populated continent is a task that only the ABC is equipped and prepared to do.
One thing I would like to specifically mention is the appetite that both the ABC and SBS have for commissioning and screening programs that tackle difficult, complex, controversial and even confronting subject matter. I have in mind programs like SBS's Go Back to Where You Came From and the ABC's Four Corners investigations into the live export industry. These kinds of programs hold up the mirror in which we can look at ourselves, and sometimes struggle with what we see. That can make life difficult for government, and it did at times for the Labor government, but that is what a free and fearless media must do, and I celebrate the fact that our ABC and our SBS deliver that kind of courage.
So it worries me, it worries my constituents in Fremantle and it worries Australians in rural and regional areas a great deal to hear the Prime Minister of the country, and others in the coalition, taking every opportunity to make partisan attacks on the ABC whilst calling its very purpose into question. I am pleased that Minister Turnbull stated in this place last week that the ABC is more important than ever. I have no reason to think that the current efficiency review into the ABC and SBS, if conducted fairly, will produce results any different than the other two previous coalition initiated inquiries into the ABC. I note that KPMG's 2006 ABC funding adequacy and efficiency review concluded that the ABC was 'operating efficiently but suffered from a structural funding deficiency and bore costs that were not faced by commercial operators'. Strangely, the Howard government chose not to release the KPMG report. I trust that Minister Turnbull will apply the principle of transparency, which is cited as a reason for this current review, to ensure that the results of the review are made public.
On the very eve of the election last year, the then opposition leader said, 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS'. It really does not come any clearer than this unequivocal commitment to Australian voters as they contemplated the ballot box. The now Prime Minister will be judged by that promise and we will hold him to it. All of those millions of Australians who depend on public broadcasting, who rely on the ABC and SBS for trusted news and quality programming, will fight to protect those cornerstones of our civic and community life.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Clare: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak until after the member for Corangamite.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:29): I think it is fair to say that most Australians love our public broadcasters—the ABC and SBS. We respect them as institutions, for the important role they play in our democratic process and for their relentless pursuit of excellence in journalism and program production. As the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, told last week's gathering of ABC luminaries here in Parliament House, 'The ABC has always been a vital part of Australia's public life and a vital part of Australia's journalistic life.'
I have a particular love of the ABC. I worked for the public broadcaster for eight years as a presenter and journalist for shows like The Investigators, Holiday and the 7.30 Report, and as a fill-in presenter on ABC radio. I even made a brief appearance in the third series of that great Australian drama Frontline. As an actor, I made a great reporter! As a journalist I did some of my finest work at the ABC. I won a Walkley and a Golden Quill for my coverage of the Port Arthur massacre, the most dreadful of tragedies, back in 1996. So I make my contribution with a particular insight into the ABC. I understand better than most its successes and achievements; its flaws and failings. On this point, I note that it is unfortunate that this motion does not include or acknowledge National Indigenous Television, which was formerly an independent public broadcaster—another public broadcaster now merged with SBS. The stories of Indigenous Australians are very important. I also worked at NITV and I respect the work of that organisation greatly.
What is clear from today's motion is that members opposite do not appreciate the ABC's obligations under its charter. The ABC has a statutory, legislated obligation to be accurate and impartial in its news and information services, according to the objective standards of journalism. Government has no say in or influence over the editorial content of the ABC. So let us make this very clear: in a democracy, like many of Australia's finest institutions, the ABC should rightly be subject to criticism if it fails to meet its statutory obligations. If members opposite are not prepared to criticise the ABC, they demonstrate a failing to engage in the democratic process.
Of course, that was not the case with Labor members of old. Bob Hawke frequently criticised the ABC during his time as Prime Minister. In 1991 he said of the ABC's coverage of the Gulf War that it had been 'loaded', 'biased' and 'disgraceful'. Another favourite son of the Labor Party, the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, once famously rebuked the then ABC Managing Director David Hill, threatening to punish the ABC in the federal budget for displeasing behaviour. Former senator Robert Ray, from Labor's right, who retired in 2008, reportedly once chastised the ABC as being 'left-wingers, Stalinists, who pursue active campaigns against us'. So in considering this motion before the House, we see an unfortunate double standard.
I think it is fair to say that, in recent times, the ABC has not always got it right. Yes, it should pursue journalism; it should do an incredible job in the stories it tells; but, when it gets it wrong, it should rightly be criticised. I fully support Minister Turnbull's urging in his speech last week that directors should step up and become more involved in holding management to account for the way in which the ABC is run. The Chair of the ABC, the Hon. James Spigelman, has announced a series of independent editorial audits of the ABC's news and current affairs programs. This is right and proper.
I reiterate: there is no plan to make cuts to the ABC, as both the Prime Minister and Minister Turnbull have said on a number of occasions. But this does not mean that the ABC should be exempt from being efficient. I worked for the ABC, as I mentioned. I saw many examples of waste, inefficiency and some terrible work practices. I am sure things have improved since those days, but it is right and proper that both the ABC and the SBS deliver programs, products and services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. ABC and SBS receive $1.4 billion per year from the taxpayer. The taxpayer deserves no less.
I particularly note the wonderful role that the ABC plays in rural and regional Australia, including in Geelong, where I am from. I wish to acknowledge the diversity of voices of the ABC, though I would urge the ABC to improve the diversity of voices across its organisation. (Time expired)
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (10:34): I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing forward this very important motion to the House. It is an important motion. It raises the issue of trust. The night before the last election the Prime Minister said that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Just over 24 hours after that on election night he said that he would lead a government that 'says what it means and means what it says'—all reasons to think that the ABC budget will not be cut and that the Prime Minister would be good to his word. But in the last few months we have seen some ominous signs. The first came from the Prime Minister himself, who said in a radio interview that the ABC:
… takes everyone's side but Australia's.
And then we heard from some of the ministers in this government. The Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, said this after a debate about the ABC and whether its budget should be cut:
What goes around comes around.
Then the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, time after time has refused to rule out cutting the Australia Network, which is run by the ABC. What is all this about? I suspect that it is about softening the ground before the Liberal Party break another promise—before they do what every Liberal government does, and that is: cut the ABC.
If they do that it means at least three things. First, it means that you cannot trust anything that this Prime Minister says. Second, it will hit regional Australia, particularly regional radio services. The Chief Executive Officer of the ABC was asked about this in estimates only a few weeks ago, and he said this:
I can give no guarantees that any services would be spared, including regional services, if our funding was cut.
He was then asked the question by Senator Urquhart:
Does that lack of guarantee refer to radio as well?
Mark Scott, Chief Executive Officer of the ABC said:
Yes, Senator.
So if there are cuts to the ABC not only does it mean that the Prime Minister's word is not something that you can trust or believe but it will hurt Australians in regional Australia that rely on the ABC's regional radio services for everything from local news to local sport to the important emergency broadcasts that are provided in times of flood, cyclone and bushfires. Third, if the ABC's Australia Network contract is cut then it will also hurt our influence in our region—in Asia and in the Pacific. That is not my analysis; that is the view of business leaders who are closely aligned with the Prime Minister, including Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, who said recently in the Australian Financial Review:
Certainly there is a case to be made for having Australia Network in a soft-power advocacy role, particularly to the region.
Hugh Morgan made the same point. He said:
To pack up and go would send an immediate message, particularly if it is seen as retribution against the ABC in a political context. The signals would be 'why the hell have you gone, we've spent all this time setting up, we thought you were coming to Asia'.
That is Hugh Morgan. Peter van Onselen made the same point in The Australian recently, where he said scrapping the Australia Network would be:
… rash, reactionary and will ultimately be counterproductive to our national interests.
So there is a lot of stake in this debate. There is a lot at stake in the discussions that are going on in the ERC right now. If the decision is made to break this promise and cut the ABC's budget, it will hurt the Prime Minister's integrity, it will hurt regional Australia and it will hurt our influence in the region. That is why it is important that the Minister for Communications wins this debate in the ERC and in cabinet. He has got to convince the Prime Minister that he is wrong on this. He has got to win this debate. All of the signs are not promising. He has been beaten by the Prime Minister in the past on the republic. He was beaten by the Prime Minister in a leadership decision only a few years ago. He was rolled by the Prime Minister on Huawei only a few months ago and only last week he was rolled by the Prime Minister on his request to reappoint the head of the SBS for another term. On any objective analysis Malcolm Turnbull is due for one, and for the good of the ABC we hope he wins on this important issue.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT ( Maranoa — Deputy Speaker ) ( 10:39 ): I rise to speak on this motion, which addresses the very important issue of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC, particularly as it relates to my electorate and to rural and regional areas right across Australia. In many ways the ABC is a lifeline for the bush. Whether it is Country Houror the country breakfast session in the morning, so many people rely on the information provided by the ABC. You can turn it on from six o'clock in the morning and get accurate market reports for markets that could be 1,000 kilometres away. That is vital information for people in rural Australia, who in most cases are denied reasonable access to the internet and to mobile phone services and who live vast distances from markets.
The ABC really does have a longstanding reputation for providing some of the most independent, credible and up-to-date news services in the industry, whether on television, online or on radio, through Radio National. The number of constituents who come to me and say that they would love to be able to access ABC Classic FM is remarkable. Who else provides that? It is a specialised channel. Occasionally I listen to Classic FM, when I turn off Slim Dusty, on the road to the outback. I enjoy it, and so do many of my constituents. I appeal to the board not to make cuts to these vital services to people in rural and regional Australia.
The ABC has a broad cross-section of programs on ABC1, ABC2, ABC3 and ABC News 24. There are wonderful free-to-air programs on these channels for people in rural and regional Australia. I occasionally watch ABC2, as my grandchildren watch it and I like to understand what they are watching. They are wonderful programs that are broadcast to constituents right across my electorate.
ABC programs from Longreach, Toowoomba and Mount Isa are broadcast across my constituency. If I switch on the ABC in the morning, I will know where the Royal Flying Doctor clinic will be on that day and for the rest of the week. Not only will I know; the constituents will know. If there is a problem with the Royal Flying Doctor clinic scheduling at, say, Windorah or Birdsville, people will know about it. Where does this information come from? It comes from the ABC rural network out west, from Longreach.
The ABC plays a role in emergencies, with information on such things as road closures. In my part of the world, there are no divided highways. There are no tunnels across the city to ease traffic congestion, which the member for Ryan would understand is important for Brisbane. In my part of the world, it is all dirt tracks, in some cases little better than when the first bullock wagon pulled into town. In times of floods, the ABC is able to provide information on road closures and on roads which will only permit high-clearance vehicles. The ABC relies on local people ringing in with very important information on how much rain has fallen in the vast areas of my electorate. The ABC connects communities. The journalists in these areas are part of the community. It is vital that they have good, reliable four-wheel drive vehicles with satellite phones when they travel vast distances to attend events and to report the news and the stories of smaller communities, which deserve to have their voice heard from time to time across our networks.
The ABC Western Queensland broadcasts to nearly 75 per cent of the land area of Queensland. Their primary coverage extends from the Northern Territory border in the west to the eastern highlands and from Hughenden right down to the New South Wales border. The population of the shires in ABC Western Queensland's coverage area is estimated at 57,000. To me, those people are just as important as the five million people who live in our capital cities, and these people deserve that we make sure that there are no cuts to rural and regional ABC, including to Fran Kelly's program on Radio National, or to the SBS. They should have access to all of these services.
I am very pleased that, from the Prime Minister down, the government has said that we will commit $1.4 billion in funding each year to the ABC and the SBS and that we have no plans to reduce this funding. The ABC is an important part of the daily life of constituents in rural and regional Australia. They have a wonderful reputation. They will be broadcasting the Anzac Day service from Gallipoli and the Western Front and services all over Australia. These services are provided to all Australians. (Time expired)
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:44): I rise today to support this motion, and I commend the member for Fremantle for moving it. As stated in the motion, the ABC's charter requires the broadcaster to 'contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community'. The Newspoll conducted to determine community attitudes towards the ABC in June 2013 indicated that 82 per cent of respondents believed that the ABC did a good job at being distinctively Australian. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents thought the ABC did a good job at being balanced and even-handed. When asked whether people thought the ABC was valuable to the Australian community, 85 per cent responded in the affirmative. The Labor Party agrees and extends this to the SBS.
It is therefore disheartening that some people in this place—and some in the community, indeed—are so out of step with this sentiment on this important issue. The ABC and the SBS have rightly earned their reputations for rigorous, trustworthy journalism. When news breaks, the Australian people have turned to the ABC. When there is an emergency service announcement, the Australian people have turned to the ABC. When new citizens who spoke little English wanted to find out about a historic Labor initiative called Medicare, they turned to the SBS. Since 1932, the ABC has served Australia. Since 1975, the SBS has done the same. They have each, therefore, earned the respect of the Australian people, and they deserve this parliament's respect and the support of government to continue their paths of innovation, comprehensive broadcasting and fulfilling their roles in Australian society.
As the shadow minister for citizenship and multiculturalism, I am particularly concerned with promoting the important role the SBS plays in building an inclusive and harmonious community through the broadcasting of non-English-language and multicultural programming. Its very existence is a reflection of Australia's multicultural society. Australians are entitled to free-to-air entertainment and news irrespective of their ethnicity, and in many cases the SBS's programming is focused on educating all Australians about our role in the world and the diversity of peoples that our nation comprises.
I want to take this opportunity to mention but one instance of many which highlight the wide-ranging scope and needs of the various communities who rely on the SBS. In late 2012, it became apparent following a census of community languages that the number of Maltese radio programs would be reduced. One can understand the SBS needing to perform this task when newer languages arise and, informed by the census, some older languages may become smaller as a proportion of the population as a result. As a result of that, the SBS needs to have its programming reflect those changes. My electorate of Greenway and many surrounding parts of Western Sydney are home to a very large Maltese community. Many elderly Maltese residents rely on those services. So it was with great concern that I was approached by many members of the Maltese community early last year to make me aware that the SBS, after undertaking its first major review of the SBS analog radio schedule in more than 18 years—so you can understand why it needed to undertake it—found that, according to the notification given by Peter Khalil, the director of corporate affairs:
… it was necessary to rebalance the allocation of in-language broadcast hours for different language communities in order to bring them into line with the demography of today's Australia …Under the new schedule, the Maltese language program was allocated two broadcast hours per week on the analogue schedule.
However, following consultation with the Maltese community and representations by me, I am pleased to say that it was announced, effective from 29 April last year, that the SBS would allocate additional broadcast time to the Maltese-language program on its new digital radio schedule, to be reviewed after two years.
The reason I raise this is that this was really business that the SBS needed to conduct and where it needed to reflect the community, done within the parameters of an existing budget, not within the context of a commission of audit. So, if this is the kind of dilemma that the SBS finds itself in, in serving many different community needs and also, to its credit, being innovative, I think we can imagine what would happen in the scope of a commission of audit.
I conclude by urging this government to respect the mandate of our public broadcasters to provide comprehensive broadcasting services and to enable them to be financed in order that they might continue to perform this very important role.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:49): I rise today to speak on the motion by the member for Fremantle, relating to the ABC and SBS, noting that the principle of the motion is unfounded and unnecessary. In fact, I wonder if the member proposing this motion has actually listened to the plethora of statements made by the Minister for Communications. If she had, she would be aware that this motion is simply irrelevant. Indeed, it is nothing more than a beat-up by a rudderless opposition trying to drum up yet another baseless scare campaign.
I wish to make the following points very clear. The Australian government has no power to direct the ABC in relation to organisational matters. Neither does the government have any plans to review the ABC's charter. Internal ABC programming and editorial decisions are the responsibility of the ABC executive board. Since the ABC started, politicians and the public have had particular views on ABC programming and have made their views well known. One of the ABC's statutory obligations is to be accurate and impartial in its news and current affairs programs according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. The ABC board is required to develop codes of practice relating to programming matters and lodge these codes with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
While the ABC has editorial independence, it is accountable to the parliament through annual reports, corporate plans, and financial and performance audits, and it appears before parliamentary committees. The government is committed to maintaining the quality, performance and efficiency of the ABC.
I note that the chairman of the ABC, the Hon. James Spigelman AC QC, announced on 11 December last year a series of independent editorial audits of the ABC's news and current affairs programs. The ABC itself intends to undertake four external audits of its news and current affairs services each year and will publicly release the audit findings.
On the matter of ABC and SBS funding, the Australian government has no plans to reduce funding for the ABC or SBS or to review their editorial policies and programming content or the responsibilities under their charters. Similarly, the government has no plan to introduce advertising on the ABC. That is yet another Labor scare tactic. The ABC and SBS receive $1.4 billion in funding from the Australian government a year. It is a routine responsibility of all government agencies to ensure that taxpayers' funds are used as efficiently as possible, and the national broadcaster should be no exception. The Department of Communications has commenced a study to examine costs for the day-to-day operations that deliver ABC and SBS programs, products and services and propose options to increase efficiency and reduce expense. The study will review not the content of what is broadcast but, rather, the cost of delivering that content and the operations that support it. The main objective of the study is to ensure that the ABC and SBS can fulfil their charter responsibilities as cost-effectively as possible and keep pace with rapidly changing practices in the broadcasting sector. I must make it clear that these studies are purely for efficiency to ensure that taxpayers' money is being spent appropriately; they are not an investigation into editorial content. The report arising from the study will be provided to the chairman of the ABC and SBS on completion.
In addition to the efficiency study, the National Commission of Audit has been provided with a broad remit to examine the scope for efficiency and productivity improvements across all areas of Commonwealth expenditure. If the commission comments on the national broadcasters, then the government will consider its comments, along with the findings of the efficiency study.
The ABC is a very special organisation. Unlike any part of the commercial media, it has to steer a middle course. That is not to say that it cannot express an opinion. But it does have a statutory and legislative obligation to be accurate and impartial in its news and information services according to the objective standards of journalism. To all those who think that the government should be regulating the media, just remember: the internet has grown up with almost no government involvement at all. The internet has been built and is governed almost entirely by the technical community that built it. It is almost a government-free zone. It is worth reflecting on that. The greatest technological and communications innovation in history was instigated by government but has grown up without it.
I look forward to seeing the efficiency studies into the ABC and SBS result in better value for the taxpayers' dollar, and I trust that the ABC's own editorial audits and board of directors, in consultation with the Australian public, will address issues expressed by the Australian audience. (Time expired)
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (10:54): I rise in support of the motion by the member for Fremantle and to make some comments about the importance of the ABC and SBS with regard to our national community and also to raise some concerns about what I believe may be behind comments made by some members of government with regard to the future of national broadcasters.
As we know and as both sides of the chamber have acknowledged, the ABC has performed an incredibly important role, as does SBS. The roles that they perform with regard to regional Australia in diversity and ensuring that there is a broader debate within our national political life are acknowledged widely and are important. That shows through with regard to the sort of support that shows up for the ABC and SBS and their reporting.
For example, Essential Media Communications says that ABC TV news and current affairs had some 70-plus per cent in trust in 2013. This was followed closely by SBS TV news and current affairs at 65 per cent, then ABC radio news and current affairs at 63 per cent. I make the point that trailing far behind are the commercial TV news and current affairs at 41 per cent and commercial radio news and current affairs at 38 per cent. I think that in itself makes the point about the broader view in the community about trust and professionalism within the national broadcasters.
I would also make the point, with regard to the nature of the services that it provides, that some 85 per cent of Australians believe that the ABC provides a valuable service to the community. ABC radio, over just five cities, had a weekly metropolitan reach of 4.5 million people and some 66 million ABC podcasts were downloaded in 2013. The fact is that what we have here are national organisations that provide important services and provide those services throughout the nation like, frankly, no other broadcasters do. They do it with government support, and that support needs to be maintained.
Speakers opposite have said that a lot of what is in this motion is a beat-up—it is a beat-up because there is nothing happening about the broadcasters and essentially there is an efficiency review. Well, an efficiency review and the question of what that review examines and finds, and how that review is viewed within the government, suggest to me that there is an attempt being made to soften things up and to actually create a situation where cuts can occur. It is happening in the lead-up to a budget process. We have seen this before under governments of all persuasion: actions are often taken in the lead-up to a budget in order to set the tone for changes in the budget.
We know that the Prime Minister made it very clear before the election that there would be no cuts to the ABC or to SBS—not one dollar. But we also know that he is on the record since criticising the national broadcaster regarding the nature of its reporting and making some comments around how it has portrayed its role that actually suggest a great deal of criticism. I, for one, am not uncritical of the ABC or SBS. I believe that at times they have got it wrong. At times I have been quite critical of their coverage, and I think that at times they need to review how they actually report issues. But, having said that, the principle of and the need for national broadcasters in the situation that we have in Australian society are essential. The fact that those broadcasters need to be funded properly in order to provide those services is also something that needs to be understood.
Other speakers have spoken about comments made by various ministers around the criticism of the ABC. We have also seen comments from backbenchers, like Cory Bernardi, criticising the ABC. We have also seen the Institute of Public Affairs on record making a number of comments with regard to the national broadcaster, suggesting that changes need to be made—that cuts need to be made.
Frankly, we know from the Howard government that there was a term then used with regard to a whole range of issues: it was called 'dog whistling'. We know dog whistling when we hear it, and we know dog whistling when we see it. The nature of the way that members of the government have approached the ABC in recent times suggests dog whistling. It suggests that attempts are being made to soften up the Australian community for cuts to the ABC and SBS. It suggests that what we are seeing is an attempt to undermine the national broadcasters with regard to the role that they play in Australian society.
I would urge the government to think very carefully before moving down this track. The fact is that the ABC and SBS provide essential services throughout this country and they provide them well. They are not without criticism, but they ought to be celebrated as being premier providers of news, current affairs and community engagement throughout our society. They need to be supported. They do not need to be attacked in the manner in which this government looks to be doing it.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (11:00): In following the member for Bruce, I note that he was quick to point out that those on this side had expressed some opinions against the ABC. However, I can tell you that, proudly, back in January I outed myself on this topic—and it has nothing to do with the pink shirt I am wearing today. I outed myself in support of the ABC. I love the ABC, and my electorate loves the SBS. Monday nights on the ABC are my favourite: the 7 pm news with Juanita Phillips; 7.30, where Sarah Ferguson is doing a fine job covering for Leigh Sales; eight o'clock, when Australian Story kicks off with Caroline Jones; Media Watch, with Paul Barry back at the helm; and then of course Q&A with Tony Jones, and I want to come out with this now: I reckon he's a 'swinger'—when I say that, I mean voter, of course. You can take that as a comment. I had the honour of being mentioned this year, surprise, surprise, in the first question on Q&A, with relevance to this particular topic, and who knows—gratuitous act of self-promotion!—one day I might even get to appear on the show.
My father-in-law is a cocky about 90 kays from here in Gundagai, where he runs a cattle property. I have spent many hours in cattle yards working alongside him and I know the vital role that the ABC plays in regional Australia. As for the SBS, as the member for Reid I am the member for one of the most culturally diverse seats in federal parliament. As of the 2011 census, 55.1 per cent of the people of Reid were born overseas and 61 per cent spoke a language other than English. The SBS plays a vital role for these people. Following on from what everyone has said here today—with relevance to the comments the Minister for Communications has made re the ABC board, charter and structure—the ABC has served the Australian people well for a long time now and it will continue to do so. Any claims of dog-whistling made by the member for Bruce should be treated with the respect that they deserve—that is, none. The ABC should report without fear or favour, and, put simply, both sides should get cranky with the way they report from time to time.
I do not know whether the member for Werriwa was a lawyer, but I note that, of the other five speakers, at least four are lawyers, and if the member for Werriwa is one then that makes it five out of five. I come from a commercial background and I want to bring a commercial aspect to this debate today. We in government spend taxpayers' money and we must do so wisely. Traditionally, businesses in this country operate a profit-and-loss statement. They have two sides: a revenue side and an expense side. By deducting the expenses from the revenue you come up with the bottom line, EBITDA. The problem with the ABC is that it is not a commercial operation. It only has expenses; it does not have revenue. So, considering we are spending $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money, we have a job to review—not only now but, I would say, continually—the efficiency of the operation. We owe that to taxpayers because we are also at a fiscal crossroads. Those opposite have left us in a situation where we have $123 billion worth of debt in the out years of the budget, and a combined $673 billion. If we were ever going to be serious about efficiency and looking after taxpayers' money, now is the time—it must be the time.
I will pose a rhetorical question: if we could run the ABC 25 per cent cheaper today and get the same result, would we do it? The answer on the government's side is yes. You would assume that is a rhetorical question. However, the problem with a motion of this nature is that you cannot assume that. I believe that those opposite would not want to do that. That is the problem. Commercial acumen is lacking in this debate, and I am attempting to bring it in. I believe that the process initiated by the Minister for Communications is the right one. It will come up with the right result, putting taxpayers' dollars front and centre of our minds, as it should be—the backbone of a Tony Abbott coalition government.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:05): At the outset, I associate myself with a few comments made by the member for Corangamite. Certainly, I would have hoped that there was reference in this motion to Indigenous television. I also agree with her assertion that no area of society should be exempt from criticism. The ABC is as imperfect as all of us, and, indisputably, there can be commercial investigations as to its effectiveness. I was persuaded by comments by Brian McNair and Adam Swift in the Brisbane Times, which made this point about a comparison with a well-known international provider:
The BBC receives the equivalent of about A$8 billion in revenue from various sources each year (mainly the licence fee). With this, it services more than 65 million viewers, listeners and online users.
The ABC makes do with an annual budget of A$1.2 billion to serve a population of 22 million. That’s about 45% of what the BBC gets, per head of population. Given the quality of the ABC’s output overall, that’s a good deal for the Australian taxpayer. Don’t let any private media proprietor tell you otherwise.
In similar vein, I noticed comments in TheFinancial Review on the weekend by the outgoing chair of the SBS, who was unfortunately not reappointed, Joseph Skrzynski. He noted: 'We now have 74 languages every week. Nobody else in the world goes near it. The next biggest thing is Vatican radio, with 32, but frankly we do twice as many languages as the voice of God. The BBC is down to about 27.' That is an analysis of comparisons with a highly reputable BBC, which is not being criticised by Cameron's conservative government in the UK.
I note the comments by the Prime Minister that there is no threat to SBS and ABC funding and I also particularly commend the comments of the Minister for Communications last week that the ABC is more important than ever. However, these have to be seen in the context of an unrelenting campaign by political partisans such as Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Gerard Henderson, Miranda Devine and co, and a very disturbing comment by the Prime Minister in relation to the coverage of one particular issue, where he said that the ABC was 'on everyone's side but Australia's'. Those words could have been spoken by Vladimir Putin, that in some way your national broadcaster is there to toe the government line. I am not disputing for a moment that in Australian broadcasting's role in South-East Asia it should promote largely positive comments about our country—our multiculturalism, our diversity, our engagement with the world—but to say that on controversial issues it must be on the government's side and the nation's side is a form of threat. It would be disturbing if there were to be payback with regard to finance because of a view that the media was too objective.
The member for Corangamite also made the point that this organisation has been attacked by Labor prime ministers. So be it; that is great. I am happy that on occasion the ABC is seen as not toeing the Labor party's line when it is in government, but that is no excuse to undermine an organisation which has so many positives. Since 2009, the ABC has spent $84 million on documentaries, dramas and children's projects that resulted in $257 million worth of total production of the independent sector. Importantly, Screen Australia's CEO, Ruth Harley, commented that television broadcasters have raised their stakes, with all broadcasters increasing their investment in Australian drama. However, she noted:
In particular, it’s been an outstanding couple of years for the ABC, which financed 30 titles in the 2012-13 slate, providing the largest contribution of investment of any single broadcaster. The ABC’s recent triennial funding boost has enabled it to commission significant levels of high-quality, original drama. This has produced great results for the industry and audiences with titles such as Serangoon Road, The Gods of Wheat Street and returning seasons of Redfern Now.'
The ABC are crucial to Australian content. They do this because of their charter and because of their culture. They see that sometimes it is more commercially viable to run some junk show on fixing up houses or some cooking competition where you do not have to pay anyone who has any acting ability whatsoever, but in the national interest they provide this groundwork for Australian culture, Australian performance and Australian production.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:09): It is great to be able to speak on this motion regarding the ABC and SBS and to follow on from some of the very wide-ranging debates that we have seen over the last half hour or so. The motion can be boiled down to two issues. One issue is whether the government should direct the ABC on how to manage editorial content. The answer to that is, of course, no. The second issue is whether the government should ensure that the taxpayers get good value out of what the ABC does, and the answer to that is absolutely yes. It is entirely consistent with support for the ABC to say that the ABC should be required to do a good job with the substantial taxpayer funds it has. It would be an abrogation of responsibility if a government did not make sure that the ABC was being operated as efficiently as it could be.
When it comes to editorial content, the ABC has an obligation to provide accurate and impartial commentary in its news and current affairs. It is obviously a matter for the board to satisfy itself that that is what the ABC is in fact doing, and it is good to see those remarks from the chairman in recent times regarding the processes that he will be putting in place. I have served on the boards of a number of media organisations and if I were on the board of the ABC I would certainly want to make sure that it was appropriately meeting its requirement to provide accurate and impartial reporting. A simple way of doing that—as the chairman has put in place—is to have regular external reviews or a subcommittee of the board, but it does seem to me that it is incumbent upon the board to satisfy itself on that question. The only way the board can satisfy itself on that question is if it asks the question and reviews the issue on a regular basis, because accuracy and impartiality are important.
It is also entirely appropriate that, from time to time, the editorial policies of the ABC are criticised. There would not be a person in this chamber who agrees with absolutely everything the ABC says. Just as the ABC would fight for its independence and for its capacity to be able to speak freely, so should each of us be able to speak freely on matters related to the ABC. I know there have been many ABC reports that I certainly have not agreed with in their editorial tone, and no doubt that occurs right across the board.
It is also important that the ABC is efficient. The ABC is not a hermetically sealed organisation that cannot ever be questioned and cannot ever be subject to change. We all have to change because if we do not move forward then, by definition, we are going backwards. The ABC should look at its efficiency, and the sorts of things that the current review is looking at are very important. These are issues like how much the ABC spends on programming as a percentage of its total expenditure, and you want that number to be as high as possible; how the ABC manages its broadcast operations from an engineering perspective and whether they are as efficient as they could be in an environment where the technology around broadcasting and video file compression is changing pretty much by the week; and whether the cooperation across the different levels of the ABC is as integrated as it could be between broadcast, radio and digital. These are the sorts of questions that a sensible review would look at.
I am certainly heartened by the fact that Peter Lewis, former CFO of Seven—who, coincidentally or not, was CFO at Seven at a time when it was very successful in the 2000s—is leading that review, and I am sure that that review will look into these issues related to the ABC's efficiency. I served with Mr Lewis on the board of Sky News, and always found him to be a very intelligent and conscientious gentleman, and I am sure he will do a great job with this upcoming review.
Clearly editorial policy is a matter for the ABC—it is not appropriate for the government to dictate and editorial position, and it is not intending to do so. But the government will fight hard, as it should, to ensure that the ABC operates efficiently. And that is precisely what we are doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
MOTIONS
Deregulation
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:15): I move the motion relating to deregulation in the terms in which it appears in the Notice Paper:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that in April 2007, the previous government promised to lift Australia's productivity performance by implementing a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' policy, but instead, between 2007 and 2013 it added over 21,000 new regulations and repealed 105;
(b) the findings of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's 2012 National Red Tape Survey which showed that:
(i) 44 per cent of businesses spend between one and five hours a week complying with government (federal, state or local) regulatory requirements (filling out forms, applying for permits, reporting business activity);
(ii) 72 per cent of businesses say the time they are spending on red tape has increased in the last two years; and
(iii) 54.3 per cent say that complying with government regulations has prevented them from making changes to grow or expand their business; and
(c) that in 2013, Australia was ranked 128 out of 148 nations on the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index in terms of its regulatory burden;
(2) recognises:
(a) the need for significant deregulation and the removal of burdensome red and green tape to allow businesses in the Australian economy to grow;
(b) that the Government has a plan to cut regulation across all areas of government, including on the Parliament's first repeal day scheduled for 26 March 2014;
(c) that the House Standing Committee on the Environment is currently inquiring into the impact of 'green tape' and issues related to environmental regulation and deregulation; and
(d) that identifying other obsolete and outdated legislative instruments and removing them from the statute books will reduce the regulatory burden on the Australian economy; and
(3) commends the Government for undertaking this approach to deregulation to boost productivity in the Australian economy.
I rise today with great pleasure to note and move this motion in relation to the government's deregulation agenda—an agenda I believe is probably the single most important deregulation agenda taken at federal level in the history of the Commonwealth. It comes on the back of a government that benchmarked its success by passing laws—that is, that the volume of laws somehow had some significance to its effectiveness, which of course we know to be a complete furphy.
It is actually a shameful record that in 5½ years Labor introduced more than 975 new or amending pieces of legislation and more than 21,000 additional regulations. It speaks to a government out of control and which says that every response of government must first be a legislative response. If there is a problem, we must legislate. If there is a challenge that is faced by business or the community, we must alter a regulation, amend an act, put more paper into parliament, and that will somehow fix our problems. But of course that is not the best way to govern a society, and the fact that the Commonwealth has accumulated so much unnecessary regulation over so many years speaks to a need for urgent deregulation.
This is not just the government's view. It is also the view of the not-for-profit sector and the major business sector, and importantly, of the small and medium enterprises around our country—the many millions of small and medium businesses that struggle to compete against bigger business, that struggle to create, innovate and do the job of powering the economy day in and day out. So the first point of this motion is to note that the government has a strong deregulation agenda, and I want to commend the Prime Minister for his determination to see deregulation at the forefront of government. I also want to commend my friend the parliamentary secretary responsible for deregulation, Josh Frydenberg—a man of vision and great leadership—who is driving this agenda. And I think that as the member for Grayndler walks out it is important to note that every time he would get up in the last government and say, 'We have achieved success; we have passed hundreds of bills; today it is now 200'—or 300 or 400—it would send a chill down the spine of most Australians, because what we do not need is simply more laws; what we do not need is simply more regulation.
Labor likes to have its little red books. Well, the parliamentary secretary responsible for deregulation has produced a little red book of red tape reduction, which I can highly recommend to all members. This little red book of red tape reduction is perhaps one of the most important documents we have seen in Commonwealth history. It acknowledges that as a society we have gone too far in over-regulating and in making large, small and medium business comply with processes not once—and sometimes not even just twice—but multiple times, for the same effect and for no purpose other than regulation—no outcome that is different from any different layer of government, and not just simply a function of our federalist system but also a product of multiple acts in the same area, multiple triggers requiring different processes for the same outcome.
This is a process that has to come to an end. That would bring great productivity improvements for our country. It would give people the capacity to spend more time working for themselves in their business, not just the government, which would enable people to produce and make more money in their business That would mean more opportunities for jobs, growth, investment and prosperity for Australians. It is the government's fundamental agenda to ensure that the economy is rebooted, and there is no better way to start than with getting our own house in order—and that is government and this parliament. That is why this motion today is so important. It notes that Australian commerce and industry put out a great red tape survey in 2012, which had horrific, damning statistics in it. These showed that 44 per cent of businesses spend between one and five hours per week complying with federal, state or local government regulatory requirements—just filling out forms, applying for permits, reporting business activity. Yet 72 per cent of businesses said the time they are spending on red tape has increased in the past two years; 54.3 per cent say that complying with government regulations has prevented them from making changes to grow or expand their business.
And then there was the damning rating Australia received in competitiveness—128 out of 148 in terms of our regulatory burden. That is 128th in the world. It is not a hallmark of a competitive economy, and in the modern era we must be able to compete. We cannot compete on many of our cost structures, but we should be a competitive jurisdiction internationally in relation to our regulatory burdens. We know that major projects can fail if they are not timely. We know delay can be fatal to hundreds of billions of dollars of investments. We have seen, for example in South Australia—and I note the sad return of a Labor government there—that we lost a critical project, and I would cite delay as one of the key reasons that project never came through. Delay can be fatal to a major project. Delay is the No. 1 reason that cost structures go up in a major project and can cause those things to fail. We have to be competitive internationally.
That is why it is great to see a government that is prepared to go forward and reduce red tape in such a substantial way. We have seen the previous government's approach, and I think it was Chassidus who said, 'The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government'. He had something back then, but of course he could not have envisaged a complex and modern society like we have today. And he was not just referring to volume: the more corrupt the government, the more numerous the laws. Every response was legislative in the past government.
I have Labor members looking at me in a bemused fashion. They do not know what I am talking about. They think a new law is the answer to everything; they think a new regulation will solve every problem. It will not. We have heard a chorus of strange reactions from the Labor to this: 'This was actually our idea'. Well, I can attest that the previous government had several ministers for deregulation, and you could not identify what any of them had been doing. We know the facts. We know it was 975 new or amending pieces of legislation, 21,000 additional regulations and the repeal of only a few hundred. So it certainly was not their idea. If it was their idea, they never implemented it—another great Labor idea never implemented. It certainly would never have happened under a Labor government. They simply do not understand the weight of burden on a small business and a medium enterprise that is struggling to compete but has to work for the government. Time spent working for the government is not time well used for a small business; it is dead time. That is why I am very pleased to have my friend and colleague the member for Reid following me. He has commercial experience and has run businesses. He understands how much time is taken up working for the government when it could be better placed in the business, when it could be better placed growing and expanding, and when it could be better placed employing.
We have reached a necessary junction in our history: we need to deregulate. We need to have less regulation and more efficient regulation, and that is also the driver—not just to remove pieces of redundant legislation, which we are doing in up to 10,000 cases, but to go through those existing regulations and say that we can reduce the cost structures of so many of these. If you go through the material that the Parliamentary Secretary for Deregulation has provided, and I recommend it to members, especially those opposite, you will find each individual measure by portfolio and the specific reductions in cost-structures for business that come from this deregulation. This is real, it is quantifiable and it will mean a great boost to our productivity and competitiveness.
The cost-structures amount to the staggering sum of almost $700 million. If you really want to get business moving, if you really want growth and if you really want jobs to be created, you have to work with business to ensure they are able to grow and employ. Each of these specific measures—there are too many to read today, and I am pleased there are too many to read today, because there are over 80 here—is a winner in terms of deregulation cost.
Members opposite want to take objection to one or two of them. Even in relation to the Future of Financial Advice, when you had serious criminality and evidence of a criminal matter their first instinct was to treat the whole sector like criminals. Their first instinct is to say this is a problem with everybody, that commissions lead to criminality, which is very collectivist Labor thinking. It is not the case that because you take a commission you are somehow a criminal, or that somehow your behaviour is led down the line of becoming a criminal. You are blind to the cost structures of these industries and sectors and the complexities of how they work. It is not an adequate response to simply say, 'We are changing the law across the whole board, because everybody that might be involved in taking a commission is therefore somehow motivated to be a criminal.' That is not correct. We should address the criminality, we should address the details of what went wrong, but we should not necessarily baulk at removing this burden on so many financial advisers. We need to ensure that people have the flexibility needed in their business to compete.
I will finish by commending this motion to the House. It is a very important motion, probably one of the most important we have seen in many years. It is on the back of the Prime Minister's determination to make this a government that is about getting the shackles off business and off the not-for-profit sector to allow them to be productive parts of our society. We have come to an era in government and our society where government is too pervasive, involved in too many things, passing too many laws, and trying to do too much for too many people. We need to wind it back, we need to make sure our businesses can grow, compete, employ, and do the jobs they are supposed to do. The number one way we can do that is by deregulation in government.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (11:25): I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (11:25): It is important for all of us to talk about red tape reduction and deregulation. What is more important than talk, though, is to actually see it through over long periods of time, which is exactly what Labor did in government. I take the opportunity to speak on this motion, because I want to set the record straight. This motion does not reflect fact or reality and it is peppered with inaccuracies. The contribution from the previous member was an unintelligible rave of a collection and series of phrases, slogans and words that any year 12 student writing an assignment would string together without any knowledge of what he is actually talking about.
Let us stick with facts and what happens in reality and what this so-called red tape reduction and deregulation the Liberals and the Nationals are going to foist on the Australian public actually is. Right at the outset I want to make it very clear that we support red tape reduction and we support deregulation. The Liberals and Nationals admit that we actually had a minister for deregulation. The fact is, according to the Parliamentary Library, while in government we repealed more than 16,000 pieces of legislation and other instruments, 7,500 of them last year. That is a record we are very proud of.
There is this furphy that does the rounds that we introduced 21,000 new pieces of something, but they do not go into the detail—sometimes they say 21,000, sometimes 22,000, they just make up the number. The reality of what those 21,000 were about, if you look at them, is that 3,400 of them were air safety certificates. I am sure if the opposite side had the chance they would have said, 'there are 3,400 pieces of red tape and regulation we do not need in Australia'. Those are air safety certificates. Another 4,200 were regulations to relax tariff concessions to make life easier for small business. Perhaps they would not have done that. But we know that what they actually did do the moment they got into government was to take away from small business $4 billion worth of direct assistance. We know that for a fact. The Prime Minister, how is beyond me, crows that getting out of the road of small business by taking money away from them makes life easier. I am sure some people could argue that is not actually the case. The fact is, and these are facts, that we did more of this in government than the other mob are dreaming about doing on their stunt day—which is all it is. The normal course of government ought to be that you turn up here and you do not make a song and dance about it every single day. It is actually your job. Getting rid of red tape and making life easier for consumers and small business is your job. It is not a stunt to turn up here every day and crow about it and make it sound as though you are doing something new and unusual that nobody has ever done in the past.
The facts are evident when you check with the Parliamentary Library, or Fact Check, or anywhere you want to check. In fact, check with big business, the mates of the Liberals and the Nationals. Check with them on their own graphs. Check what they say about regulations and who introduced the most. Surprise, surprise, it was done under the Howard government—the great bastion of regulation and red tape. They put mountains of it in place. When Labor got in office there was this peak. We had to siphon through it all to start trying to get rid of some of it. We did, and we did a good job. At the same time, as a government we faced one of the biggest economic challenges this country had seen for 75 years—a global financial crisis, not something dreamt up by small-minded Liberals and small-minded Nationals, those bastions of small business. The first thing they do as the friend of small business is to attack small business directly by taking away $4 billion, and then they smile at them and say, 'But we're your best friends.' That makes me think, 'Oh, boy, if that's what a best friend does to someone, I'd hate to see these guys if they don't like someone.'
Let us get a few things right and look at some facts. There are 21,000 pieces of legislation that supposedly we introduced and they are made up of a range of different things, including thousands of things that were repealing bits of regulation. Of course, those opposite count those in. So we will be running a ruler across them to see how much legislation they actually introduce. What Labor did was beyond this argument about red tape—this argument about bits of paper, bits of blank paper. They are talking about a bonfire of regulation—50,000 bits of paper. They may as well go down to some paper seller, grab 50,000 pieces of paper and burn them because that is about how useful it will be to ordinary people, ordinary consumers and small business. They think that somehow repealing—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Order! I know the member for Oxley can look after himself very well, but I remind the parliamentary secretary and others that if they are out of their place they are disorderly.
Mr RIPOLL: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, from that unruly and disorderly mob. Perhaps they would like to get rid of the rules in this place as well. Perhaps they think there is a heap of regulation that we do not need in this place—and I would support them. But I can certainly defend myself.
In government, we implemented the Seamless National Economy agenda to reduce costs for business, to reduce compliance and to reduce the unnecessary and inconsistent regulation across jurisdictions. This is the hard lifting and the hard yakka that takes years, not some stunt where you grab a regulation from 1954 or some other outdated piece of law that has not been used for 50 years that just sits there, that barely anyone knows exists, and burn it and say that you have done your job as a government. They should do something a little more real.
The members on the other side think they are so clever. This is what they have come up with: let's burn a whole heap of regulations, including the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 and the amendment about the minimum size of the star on the Australian flag. I do not know how much money small business is going to save by these guys burning the amendment to the Flags Act. This is going to save people a fortune! I can see them now: small business ramming down the parliamentary secretary's front door—he shakes his head. But there are thousands of examples like that. You are getting rid of stuff that no-one even knows exists or has zero impact—monetary, economic, ethical—
Mr Frydenberg: What about FoFA?
Mr RIPOLL: I am glad he threw that one in. FoFA is the great catch in all this. That is in the middle of those 50,000 empty pages of nothing that will fan the flames and create lots of smoke. We will see lots of smoke coming out of those guys over there on the other side but not too much that is real except when it going to hurt people. I am not going to go into all the details of FoFA here, but, simply, FoFA is about professionalising and lifting the standards in the financial services sector, something that they have been asking for for two decades. They want the standards lifted. They want to be professional. They want to be recognised as professional. We want to help them do it.
The other thing to note here is that we want to protect consumers. If you are a retiree or you are saving for your financial independence at retirement, you need a little protection, a little regulation and a little law. Whether you are young or old, or in the middle, it does not matter. There are scams out of there and unfortunately there are people who will do the wrong thing. That is why we need good, consistent and strong consumer protection laws when it comes to financial advice. Why? Because (a) you might not know that it is happening to you (b) by the time you find out, it is too late, and (c) if you lose your life savings, you need a little help. We have seen $4 billion wiped off the funds and life savings of pensioners following the Storm collapse and Westpoint and Trio—there is a list as long as your arm, the so-called non-criminals that some of the members on the other side seem to want to protect. I do not know why they want to protect those guys, some of whom have gone to jail for ripping off pensioners. I will take the side of pensioners any day. I will take the side of people saving for their retirement any day. I can tell you that those on the other side of this House do not have too many friends. When it comes to it, National Seniors are against them and everybody is lining up, as well as all the consumer groups and even big business—and those opposite are the friends of big business; they are in their pockets.
People will understand that this is the government of insiders. They are the great insider traders of government. They are inside big business. They are inside cabinet. They are inside the Liberal Party. They are insiders. They do not care about consumers. They do not care about retirees. They do not care about ordinary folk. When they are in the middle and they get an opportunity to jump, they ask: 'Which way will I jump? Do I side with big business in making sure they get millions of dollars of extra fees or do I side with ordinary people? Do I go for the hard lift? Do I do the hard work, not just the stunts on repeal day, or do I do the good stuff?' I will tell you where the Labor Party will always be. Regardless of the popularity and regardless of the cost, we will side with consumers. We will side with senior Australians. We will protect their life savings. We will stand there for them. We will be there for the workers, moving their superannuation minimum from nine per cent to 12 per cent. We will do all that regardless of where we end up politically. We will do all that and we will continue to do that. We are not going to jump into bed with big business just because it suits somebody's particular agenda. In putting in place the standard business reporting which pulls together business activity statements, tax file numbers, declarations and a whole range of things, we will do the heavy lifting. We are the ones who will stand up for small business. We are the ones who will stand up for medium-sized enterprises. We will stand up for consumers when those opposite will not.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (11:35): There is nothing quite like following a commercial giant and, unfortunately, I do not have that option today; I am following the member for Oxley. Firstly, I commend the member for Mitchell for proposing this motion. Secondly, I want to talk about the structure of the way the government is attacking this. I notice I will be followed in this debate by the member for Parramatta, who I believe is the shadow parliamentary secretary for small business and does have small-business background. I imagine she is lonely in the committee meetings, because, if a tree falls in the Labor forest, no-one would hear it. I would like to praise the way the Prime Minister has attacked this agenda. It will make a difference to the small-business sector. And I want to focus on SMEs.
We have an employment and an underemployment problem in this country. It will not be solved by big business, to which the member for Oxley repeatedly referred. I do not blame him, because he comes from a union background—and they engage with big business day in, day out. This will be covered by SMEs, as it always has been and always will be. That is why this reform agenda is so important. The Prime Minister has seen fit to run this agenda out of his own portfolio. In doing so, he has found the most capable man in the member for Kooyong. He has made him parliamentary secretary and tasked him solely with this responsibility. It is an honour to be able to work with him on the New South Wales side, as I have done over the past six months, to make a real difference. Seventy per cent—the most recent figures—of the employment in this country is carried out by SMEs. They are not unionised. Eighteen per cent of the workforce is unionised, and that deals with big business.
The underemployment and unemployment problems that we face in this country will not be solved by government, they will not be solved by big business and they will not be solved by unions. They will be solved by small and medium-sized businesses. The best way that government can treat the sector is by getting out of their way and giving SMEs an environment in which they can, with confidence, take on bank debt, back themselves and employ people.
As someone that comes from a small and family business background, I can speak definitively on the topic instead of just read it from a textbook like the former member of this House and doctor of economics, Craig Emerson, who in 2008 promised to take a giant pair of scissors to red tape—and we all know what happened. If you want to see what happens on the ground and how this plays out, the best example is the carbon tax. It attacks every expense in the profit-and-loss statement of every business in this country, irrespective of size. And it has a multiplier effect. It passes through the supply chain so that the eventual supplier of the service to the consumer is in a position where costs are ratcheted up on a multiplied basis.
Traditionally, business would treat expense increases by raising their prices—that is, maintaining their margins. However, we have come through six years where, at the same time as expenses ratcheting up under the former government, consumer confidence has been shot to pieces. What has happened? Small and family business cannot pass these price rises on. What happens as a result is they absorb the cost, they lose margin, their EBIT data—their earnings before income tax, depreciation and amortisation—decreases and employment suffers. I will tell you how it plays out on the ground in Reid: small and family business people work longer hours themselves, they augment their trading hours and they do things that are criminal by nature, unfortunately, and pay cash. This is how it plays out on the ground. This reform agenda is so important because it lessens time businesses spend on compliance and on regulation, which is multiplied through state and through local government.
I am pleased to say that the member for Kooyong has identified this and, I believe, is working hard with the Prime Minister to make this a COAG reform item agenda. It is so important that we work with our state and local government counterparts. As someone that has faced red tape and regulation at all three levels of government over the past 23 years, I commend not only the member for Mitchell on what he is doing but also, more importantly, the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for the agenda. For those opposite to sit here and belittle what we do shows their ignorance of the sector that we promote and will get out of the trouble it finds itself in.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:41): Over recent years there has been quite a bit of chest beating—from both sides, I must say—on this issue of reducing red tape. But I have to say that I think it is really a bit of a childish argument. It is somewhat of a red herring. All governments want to reduce unnecessary burdens on Australian businesses and the Australian public. But, if we are going to be in touch with the needs of the Australian people, what we should be doing is putting in place appropriate laws that protect their interests in cases of fraud, scams and unconscionable behaviour, while allowing them to go about their business and to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
This week is the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Storm Financial. When that particular investment unit went into liquidation five years ago, 14,000 Australians lost their savings—$3 billion in total. Many of them lost their whole life savings. In the wake of that came Trio Financial, which collapsed and many mum and dad investors lost the lot. I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services when it travelled to Wollongong, where a lot of these investors were based. They were people who had worked their whole lives as miners in the steel mills and had retired, and, on the advice of a particular accountant in Wollongong, had invested in Trio Capital. Because of fraud, they lost the lot—they lost it all.
To have to listen to those stories was heartbreaking. Some of those retirees had remortgaged their houses on the advice of these accountants, who said that this was a fail-safe investment. Because of fraud, the money disappeared and they lost the lot. They lost not only their lives savings but their kids' inheritance. Because of that, there were suicides, an increase in the level of depression and a reduction of public health in Wollongong. We have an obligation to protect people in those circumstances, as representatives of the community. That is what Labor in government did. That is the basis of the FoFA reforms—the Future of Financial Advice.
These reforms were aimed at ensuring that accountants cannot give dodgy advice to mum and dad investors without them knowing the full picture. So we introduced a best interest duty. We introduced a duty that said that financial advisers have to act in the best interests of their clients. What does that mean? That means that there is a checklist that financial advisers have to go through to make sure that they are properly advising their clients, most of whom would not have any inkling of the trailing commissions and the fees that are paid to product developers by financial advisers simply for providing those products. If that is described as red tape, then you can blow me over. I think that is a government doing its job—protecting the Australian public from unscrupulous people. We also introduced an opt-in provision so that clients actually have to sit down with their financial adviser every two years. The financial adviser has to explain to them the fees and commissions they are paying to the financial adviser and, importantly, offer approval to that financial adviser to ensure that they are aware of those fees, commissions and conditions they are entering into with the financial adviser.
I do not believe that that is burdensome. I do not see that as red tape, but those opposite do. The government do. Last week they introduced into this parliament reforms to water down the best-interest test in the Future of Financial Advice reforms and to get rid of the opt-in provision. I say to those opposite: go back and read the transcript of the corporations and financial services committee hearings in Wollongong. Hear those harrowing stories of those retired Australians who invested the lot in those financial products that went bad and then lost the lot. Then make another assessment of whether or not you believe that that is red tape and that it should be removed by this government.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:46): I am very pleased to be speaking in favour of this terrific motion moved by my friend the member for Mitchell and so passionately and ably seconded by the member for Reid. This matter really opens up a very clear fault line between the position of those opposite and the position of the government. This is really fundamental stuff. On the one hand over there you have a government-knows-best, bureaucracy-knows-best, 'We know that what's required is more regulation, more legislation, more forms for businesses to fill out,' philosophy, and what you have over here is the opposite. That is a philosophy that says the best thing we can do as a government is unshackle and free the people and small businesses of Australia to be their best. That is the difference.
We do not believe that the government is well placed to tell small businesses what to do about every aspect of their daily lives. We believe that, whilst there is a place for limited regulation, the right word is 'limited'. I have had quite a bit of experience in small and large business and so perhaps can speak on this from both sides of the equation. I would have to say that one of the worst experiences of my career in business was the burden you have in small business of filling out forms for the government. There is nothing worse after spending 10, 12 or 14 hours a day working on the thing that actually matters for your business—selling a product, developing a product and hiring your staff, all of which is hard and uncertain, and you never know what is going to happen six or 12 months down the track. And you work your guts out. Sometimes you have people relying on you—people whose mortgages depend on the success of the business you are managing. And the worst thing is getting home at the end of that 12 or 14 hours and then spending a whole bunch of time filling out forms for government. We believe that that sort of intervention by government should be as limited as possible.
There are some fantastic examples of deregulation that the member for Kooyong has shepherded through this place in recent weeks. One of them I wanted to speak about—shepherded very ably through the House—affected my electorate in particular in recent weeks. It is the change for Chinese business visitors, who contribute an enormous amount to our economy, especially in my electorate of Banks. Previously, every 12 months they had to fill out another form for a visa. As you can imagine, many of these people are in frequent contact in my electorate and across Australia. It is a huge burden—lots of red tape every 12 months. There is a sensible form now: a multiple-entry three-year visa for Chinese business visitors. That is a very simple and sensible reform.
What about the standard agreement template? It is hard enough to get your mind around one government form, let alone 50 of them. Government forms using the bureaucratic language of which they are fond are not always the easiest things to deal with, but we had a situation previously where there were dozens of very confusing forms. The standard agreement template, which has been pushed through by the member for Kooyong, is a terrific initiative.
What about the credit card change? Previously, if it was over $10,000, you had to go through the whole invoicing procedure. Obviously there are credit checks involved. There is a whole lot of complexity there. Now payments up to $20,000 can be done by credit card. It is simple, it is what happens in the real world and it is what should happen with the government as well.
The Kung-Fu Panda story I probably do not need to describe again: 3D classification. It was just silly, and it is good to see that important reform.
The paid parental leave reform was championed by the Minister for Small Business. Getting rid of that penalty is, again, taking away these processes that do not add value, get in the way and make life harder for small business. That is what we believe in.
And what about ACMA? Previously ACMA had to investigate every single complaint no matter how absurd or dated. I have seen some of those complaints, and they can be absurd and dated. It is very good that there is now discretion around whether or not to proceed with complaints.
It is a terrific initiative by the member for Mitchell to move this motion, and I commend it to the House.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:51): It is really clear from listening to the Liberal Party for the last week or so that they are trying to build a story that the Liberal Party is the great deregulator and the Labor government in its day was the great regulator. I want to deal with both of those untruths now. For a start, figures—provided by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, by the way, in case you do not want to believe them—show that the net increase in legislative instruments was higher under the last two years of the Howard government than it was under the Labor government for its entire term. It was higher under Howard in 2006 and 2007 than it was under the Labor government.
I have heard the member for Mitchell. I have read his motion and thought, 'He really should have put this through fact check before he moved it—or maybe he is not very good with maths.' When you are dealing with comparisons, you are supposed to compare like with like. What the member has done here is compared one kind of legislative instrument with legislation.
The reality is quite different. The Labor government had introduced 21,000 new and amended regulations in its six years in office, as the shadow minister said, including 3,500 airworthiness directives and 4,200 instruments for tax concession orders. But it also repealed 16,000, not 100 as the member untruthfully says in his motion, but 16,000. It also embarked on a COAG reform agenda which, according to the chairman of the COAG Reform Council, the Hon. John Brumby, would result in a $6 billion increase in productivity to GDP and up to $4 billion cost savings for business each year.
We dealt with some of the appalling legacy of the Howard government. In 2007, if your business crossed state boundaries, you had to register your business name up to six different times. Tradies and medical professionals had to register in each state. If a finance company used personal property for security, there were 23 registries and 70 acts of parliament when we came to government in 2007. We addressed all those through 31 largely completed reforms in COAG with a further eight partially concluded, which again will result in up to $4 billion cost savings for business each year. We did it the hard way.
This new lot—I find it hard not to laugh when I look at their repeal day agenda. They did the kinds of things that you do when you have nothing else to do. There are seven weeks to the budget and the government have had staff in the departments going through amending 11 different pieces of legislation to omit the word 'e-mail' and replace it with 'email'. One of the journalists refers to this as 'the war on hyphens'. This is an incredible waste of time for a government which said just a few months ago that there was an emergency and everything had to be done fast, but the government departments are spending time on this. In 16 pieces of legislation they have replaced the words 'facsimile transmission' with 'fax'. Incredibly good—small businesses all over the country will be rejoicing at this incredible reduction of red-tape! The word 'trademark' has been substituted with 'trade mark'. 'Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory' has been substituted by 'Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory'—that is, 'of' instead of 'for'. Also, there is an omission of the phrase between 'a state or territory' and substitution of between 'a state and a territory'. Again, this is an incredible waste of the department's time.
There were also 1,001 bills—in their 8,000 or 9,000 or 10,000, depending on which day they are doing the addition—that repealed other bills before 1969. How many people in how many departments were looking for those 1,001 bills over how many weeks? It is the kind of thing you do when you have nothing else to do. Talking about these repeals for a week demonstrates that they have nothing else to do in this place.
In the childcare area, in order to get the numbers up for child care, in spite of the great rhetoric, they actually brought forward automatic repeals. There is a bill that actually automatically repeals—called a sunset provision—bills which are no longer relevant. They bought those bills forward in order to get the numbers up. The childcare centres all across the country will be rejoicing! There is some nasty stuff in this but essentially this is a fraud and this motion is profoundly untrue.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Farm Household Support Bill 2014
Farm Household Support (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014
Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014
Consideration of Senate Message
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (11:57): In continuation, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, I recognise that you have very strong support for regional road infrastructure in your community, as it is a neighbour of my community of Gippsland. In that context, I am very proud of the coalition's record regarding the Roads to Recovery program. Also, the coalition is now developing a new program building on the success of Roads to Recovery, an initiative targeted at our regional bridge network. The regional bridges renewal program will see in the order of $600 million being spent on improving the regional bridge network, with the federal government working in partnership with other levels of government to maximise the value for money for Australian taxpayers through this program.
The coalition will also continue to support its Black Spot Program, which targets high-risk, high-accident areas. As we know, investment in road safety through better infrastructure certainly delivers long-term outcomes for our communities. As a member who is very passionate about road safety, having advocated it in the past in my role as the shadow parliamentary secretary for roads and regional transport, I am very pleased to see the initiative of Senator Alex Gallacher, who is working with me on establishing parliamentary friends of road safety, which already enjoys enormous support across the party divide in both chambers.
I have some very strong views on road safety, on which I will reflect in a moment. Before I get to that, I want to briefly mention the opportunities which will come through the coalition government's work on road infrastructure in relation to my electorate of Gippsland. Members would be aware that the continuation of the duplication program between Traralgon and Sale is ongoing. There was another announcement today by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to that program. It has been an excellent program for the people of Gippsland, with $140 million allocated by the federal government. I am pleased to see the coalition government is continuing to honour those commitments. There are also $45 million from the Victorian state government towards that initiative.
The Deputy Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that project. He has visited Gippsland on several occasions with me. He has travelled along that section of road and he recognises well the opportunities that exist for road safety upgrades on that stretch of road. I can confirm, following his visit earlier this year that the Deputy Prime Minister is committed, as am I, to seeing the duplication project continue on to further stages. The current $175 million allocation will not complete the project. There will be requirements for in the order of $450 million in total before the project is done.
There is some real interest from both the Deputy Prime Minister's office and the Victorian coalition government to see those further stages proceed once we finalise the work that is already underway up until 2016. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his interest in that regard and also the Victorian coalition government for its continued support under the funding model of 80 per cent by the federal government and 20 per cent by the state government.
As you, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, would be well aware, further east beyond Sale the Princes Highway is not on the national network and was not able to attract federal funding under the previous Labor government, but I am very pleased to see that the coalition, in the lead-up to the last election, made a commitment to the people east of Sale to support some co-investment on that section of road. It is still not on the national network and that is an issue of concern for the longer term, but the federal government has shown a willingness to commit to funding for some new overtaking lanes in the section east of Nowa Nowa; $11 million will be allocated for some new overtaking lanes in the coming years. There has also been funding allocated for a new rest area, which will have benefits particularly for the heavy vehicle industry and for some of the recreational traffic travelling through the far east of my electorate.
There is a lot more work to be done in relation to the Princes Highway east of Sale. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown he is willing to get out on the road. He has travelled that length of highway with me and is aware of my concerns with regard to the lack of shoulders on many parts of that section of highway but also some of the alignment issues and the lack of overtaking areas.
Building and maintaining a safer road network can save lives because it not only helps to reduce the frequency of accidents but also can reduce the severity of those accidents when they do occur. The coalition is well aware that the nation's road toll has fallen significantly—in 1982 there were 2,900 deaths and in the past couple of years there were around 1,300 deaths across Australia—however, we recognise that there is more that can be done to reduce the road toll and the number of serious injuries from vehicle accidents. When I begin my work with the parliamentary friends of road safety I will continue to support efforts to reduce road trauma among some of the identified high-risk parts of our community, including Indigenous Australians, motorcyclists, young males, cyclists, pedestrians and regional road users, who continue to be disproportionately represented in our road accident statistics both in terms of the severity of the accidents such as fatalities and regarding serious injuries, which is often a hidden element of the road toll. We hear a lot about the actual fatalities but we do not hear about the people who suffer lifelong injuries that cause them and their families enormous social disruption and cause them economic pain in terms of their capacity to be involved in employment or other opportunities in the community.
I am very keen to work across the party divide with the parliamentary friends of road safety in this coming term of parliament. I am particularly keen to see continued bipartisan support for investment in safer roads. I refer to the Australian Automobile Association's report three years ago entitled How safe are our roads? That document states:
We need to create a genuinely safe road system, in which improving the safety of drivers, vehicles and roads is of mutual importance.
… … …
Safe roads minimise the chances of these crashes happening, and if they do occur, they minimise the severity of the crash. Engineering measures to improve safety don’t have to be high cost and best of all, they last decades!
I think it is fair to say there has been a very heavy focus on improving driver behaviour and enforcement measures at a state level, but I believe the federal government can play a very significant role in improving the overall safety of the road network—for example, in the way that we allocate our funding through Roads to Recovery, by encouraging local governments to spend that money in areas where there has been a high accident history or by working with state governments on initiatives to improve the safety of the road environment. The research that underpins the National Road Safety Strategy found that 50 per cent of the anticipated reduction in road fatalities would come from building safer roads and that is consistent with the earlier work by AusRAP, which argued that building safer roads had the capacity to save more lives than the combined impacts of improved driver behaviour and increased law enforcement. That is a piece of information which is often lost in the debate around road safety. The research indicates that if you build safer roads you can have a greater impact on the road toll than the combined impacts of improving driver behaviour and increased law enforcement. I believe there is a very significant role for the federal government to play in partnering with their state governments on that issue.
In pure economic terms, many of the roadside engineering solutions are comparatively low cost when compared to some of the productivity losses and the health costs associated with fatalities and serious injuries. We need to reduce the level of serious injuries because the cost to the federal budget and to the state budget is staggering. Information from previous years shows that road accidents cost the Australian economy in the order of $27 billion per year. When we have 25 people dying and 600 people seriously injured every week on our roads, there is an economic imperative for the state and federal governments to continue to tackle this issue. All the research indicates that safer roads are critical to achieving a reduction in those costs on the community. I am only talking about the actual economic costs to the Australian government, but there are also costs in terms of trauma and social dislocation that occur in the wake of serious accidents. We all understand that. There is not a person in this place who has not been touched by the road toll in some form or another.
The federal coalition government has made it very clear that it intends to be an infrastructure government. The Prime Minister himself is driving that agenda with the Deputy Prime Minister and other ministers. We understand that if we work with other levels of government we can achieve some very significant outcomes for the economy and also for the social wellbeing of our community. I am looking forward, as I said, to working with Senator Gallacher and other members in this place who are interested in road safety as part of the parliamentary friends of road safety organisation. I believe the Parliament of Australia can show more leadership in the way we tackle the road toll. One of the great ways we can do that is by continuing to drive investment in safer roads throughout our nation.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Report
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:07): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's second report of 2014 Referrals made December 2013.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mrs ANDREWS: by leave—This report deals with five referrals, with a total estimated cost of $446.6 million.
The first referral was from Defence Housing Australia, for the development and construction of housing for defence at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory. The project cost is $89.4 million.
Defence Housing Australia proposes to construct 50 tropically designed dwellings and associated supporting roads and infrastructure for use by Defence personnel and their families at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory.
The committee visited RAAF Base Tindal and held hearings in Katherine in late January. The committee subsequently sought additional information on the project from DHA and has also requested a further public and in camera hearing. The committee will report again on the project after the additional hearings have been conducted.
The second inquiry in this report examined the construction of a new Australian High Commission in Nairobi, in the Republic of Kenya. The project cost is $57.6 million.
DFAT told the committee that Australia's engagement with Kenya, and Africa more broadly, has grown significantly in recent years as has Australia's representation in Nairobi. The current chancery, which is leased, no longer meets the department's security requirements and has significant building and fire-compliance deficiencies. The proposed purpose-built complex will serve as Australia's ongoing permanent mission to Kenya.
The committee is satisfied that there is a need for the new purpose-built high commission complex in Nairobi and recommends that the project proceed.
The third inquiry being reported on examined the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's proposal to relocate its research capabilities and staff from its site at Highett in Victoria to its site at Clayton, Victoria. The project includes the provision of a new building at Clayton for the 'CSIRO Science Education Centre' and a 'Factories of the Future Innovation Centre'. The project cost is $32 million. The cost of the works will be offset by the sale of CSIRO's Highett site.
The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that the project proceed.
The fourth inquiry examined the Reserve Bank of Australia's proposal to construct a National Banknote Site adjacent to the Bank's existing facilities in Craigieburn, Victoria. The project cost is $72 million.
Construction of the National Banknote Site would enable the transition to the 'Next Generation Banknote' series and it would meet the Reserve Bank's storage, distribution and processing requirements for the next 25 years. It will also allow for the relocation and expansion of the existing National Note Processing and Distribution Centre and will include storage capacity to accommodate the Reserve Bank's banknote holdings that are currently held at the bank's Melbourne site.
The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that the project proceed.
The fifth and final inquiry being reported on examined the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's proposal to consolidate its Australian Capital Territory property holdings by relocating staff from various leased premises in the ACT to CSIRO's own site at Black Mountain.
The consolidation project includes construction of two new science research and support facilities on the Black Mountain campus and the eventual demolition of several buildings at Black Mountain which are old, which do not meet current standards for health and safety, have high maintenance costs and which present operational risk. The project cost is $195.6 million.
The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that the project proceed.
I would like to thank members and senators for their work in relation to these inquiries and also thank the secretariat for their work. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:12): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 and to support the amendments moved by the shadow minister for infrastructure.
The Howard government was well remembered for its regional rorts. The Howard government minister at the centre of much of those rorting allegations is the very same minister who now oversees this legislation. At the time he made decisions about where money was to be spent, which projects were given the go-ahead and which projects were rejected. Having billions of dollars at your disposal to spend gives one considerable power. Therefore, not surprisingly, what we see in this bill is a transfer of decision making and with it a transfer of power from Infrastructure Australia to the minister.
Now why would you do that when there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the existing arrangements are flawed or problematic? Why even have an independent body like Infrastructure Australia if they are stripped of their authority? The value of an independent body comprised of a cross-section of skilled people is, in fact, to ensure that government funds are expended efficiently, wisely, in a justifiable priority and free of political interference. It was to stop the political interference and the rorting that the independent Infrastructure Australia was created. I suspect that this issue is not just about power but also that the changes are being made for other reasons. Those other reasons were to enable the Abbott government to deliver on election promises that they know did not stack up and which they know an independent body like Infrastructure Australia would not give priority to and, therefore, would very likely not be recommended for funding by that body.
I refer to projects like the South Road at Darlington project in Adelaide. The project was promised by the Abbott government in the lead-up to the 2013 election to shore up the vote of the member for Boothby. It is a major piece of infrastructure but, as worthy as it may be and as needed as it is, it is not Adelaide's highest priority infrastructure project. In fact, an alternative project for the very same road is considered a much higher priority project by the South Australian government's department of infrastructure and—I strongly believe—by the South Road commuting public. I refer to the alternative project of widening South road between Torrens Road and the River Torrens. What is more, a cost-benefit analysis of the two projects—that is, the South Road at Darlington upgrade and the South Road Torrens Road to River Torrens widening—shows that the return on the Torrens to Torrens widening is $2.40 for every dollar expended; compared with a return of 66c for every dollar spent on the Darlington project. That is why an independent body like Infrastructure Australia is unlikely to recommend the project, and it explains why the minister, through this legislation, seeks to and needs to sideline Infrastructure Australia. The Abbott government knows that it would otherwise be embarrassed in terms of the priority it gives its projects, because they are based not on merit but rather on political election promises. I believe that it is in order to avoid the embarrassment of having an independent body saying to the government: 'This is not the priority project that you should be funding,' that the independent body is being stripped of its power.
I raise another matter in respect of South Australia's share of local roads funding. Members opposite claim that this is the infrastructure Prime Minister that we now have in Australia, and that we have historical amounts of money being expended on national infrastructure. For the last two decades, South Australia has been receiving less than its fair share of local roads funding. South Australia has over 11 per cent of the nation's roads; it has over seven per cent of the nation's population; yet it receives over five per cent of road funding from the federal government. Each year, because of that injustice, the amount of money that is given to South Australia been supplemented. In fact, in the last government's budget the supplement was in the order of about $17 million a year for the next three years. South Australia is given that supplementary funding in order to make up the shortfall that it would otherwise be entitled to if it were to be given what we believe to be a reasonable share of the national road funding—a reasonable share being somewhere between the population quota of seven per cent and the total proportion, 11 per cent, of the country's roads. It is interesting to note that under the Roads to Recovery program the amount that South Australia gets is over eight per cent. In respect of that allocation, the quota seems quite reasonable and certainly much fairer than what it is under the other formula.
Given that, if South Australia is to get an increased share of local roads funding, it would come at the expense of allocations to other states, I can understand the difficulty in the past, with ministers saying, 'If South Australia gets an increased allocation, someone has to lose out.' The way to correct the anomaly—it is an anomaly that dates back about 20 years; I do not understand the historical context of it—is to increase the quantum of money that goes into road funding. You could then increase South Australia's allocation without decreasing the amounts that go to each of the states. My question to members opposite is this: if this is a historical amount of funding that is being provided to infrastructure, is this now not the time to correct the imbalance and give South Australia, once and for all and permanently, its fair share of national road funding from the federal government? I believe the opportunity is before us right now with this legislation and I would urge members opposite to consider correcting what has been a long-term anomaly and to restore South Australia's fair share of local roads funding.
This legislation has other aspects to it that are also of concern. I note with interest that the reference to climate change in Infrastructure Australia's guidelines is totally removed in this legislation. I find it unusual and perplexing that a government would think that just because you remove a reference to climate change it means the issue will go away. The truth of the matter is that it will not go away just because you remove references to it in your guidelines or in your legislation. That is a retrograde step on the part of the government. The reference to climate change is in there for a very good reason—that is, to ensure that projects take into account the possible effects of climate change into the future, when they are prioritised in terms of whether they should or should not get funding.
It is also interesting to see that the tax concessions for private investors in infrastructure are also being excluded from this legislation. We know that within Australia there is a deficit of infrastructure funding and infrastructure spending throughout the country. We know that the only way that that deficit will ever be made up is if we go into joint partnerships with private investors from time to time. In order to do that, there has to be an incentive for those investors. To take away the tax concessions that previously existed in legislation is a retrograde step, because it means that you will no longer attract the level of private investment in major infrastructure projects that you might otherwise have done, and in turn that means that infrastructure will either be delayed or never be built. As members opposite have quite rightly pointed out—and members on this side have pointed out the same—efficient infrastructure adds to national productivity. It is as simple as that. In turn, national productivity not only adds to the nation's income but also adds to business efficiency and viability. We need to do all we can to ensure that we have the infrastructure that we need to serve this country, and not do the opposite by taking away the tax concessions which were put in place for a very good reason.
I return to my initial point, about transferring authority back to the minister, from a different perspective. A number of national bodies, including the Business Council of Australia, the Tourism and Transport Forum and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, all support Labor's amendment to restore authority to Infrastructure Australia. They do so because they understand that Infrastructure Australia will always act independently—free of politics—to argue the case about which projects need to be funded first.
We are dealing with considerable expenditures in infrastructure. It was the last Labor government that made infrastructure spending a major priority in this country. Under Labor we went from being about 20th in infrastructure spending amongst OECD countries to being first. That was the difference Labor made, ensuring sufficient public funds were dedicated to infrastructure in this country. To its credit, the Abbott government has maintained a high level of infrastructure spending. However, it is important not only to maintain a high level of infrastructure spending but also to ensure that it is spent in accordance with the priorities that best serve this nation. If bodies like the Business Council of Australia can say to the government that allocating funds to projects needs to remain independent of politics then the suggestion that Infrastructure Australia needs to remain independent is not simply some sort of left-wing conspiracy.
The independence of Infrastructure Australia will ensure the projects that are truly deserving of priority get the priority they need and hopefully the minister will, in turn, support them through the final determination. I do not doubt that ultimately these decisions always will be made by government, but the transparency of having an independent body put up a list of recommendations will be welcomed by the public. If the minister, having seen the recommendations from Infrastructure Australia, determines not to support the priorities then it will be necessary to explain that determination. If there is a justifiable argument then so be it, but if there is no justifiable argument then the public will have a right to know why a project was funded ahead of another project that everyone else knew full well would have given the taxpayers a better return for their dollars. At the end of the day, these are Australian taxpayer dollars—in the order of $50 billion to $60 billion over the next three or four years. These are substantial funds. The public have a right to know that those funds will be spent not in accordance with the political priorities of a government, regardless of which government is in office, but in accordance with national priorities where those funds will provide the Australian people with the best return on their dollars.
For those reasons, I believe that the amendments moved by the shadow minister should be considered by the government. I believe that they are appropriate. With those comments, we broadly support the expenditure in this bill but I hope that members opposite take the opposition's amendments into consideration.
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (12:26): I rise today to support the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, which details the government's injection of $35.5 billion to infrastructure priorities. There are a number of areas that this funding will benefit—$300 million will go to the Black Spot program addressing road sites that are high risk areas for serious crashes, $300 million to the bridges renewal program to restore dilapidated local bridges, and various other major infrastructure projects across the country. But, today, I would like to endorse the commitment of $1.75 billion to the Roads to Recovery program to ensure its future for another five years, through to 30 June 2019.
On 27 November 2000, the Howard government introduced a four-year road funding package worth $1.6 billion. Of this, $1.2 billion would be spent on the Roads to Recovery program. At this time the program was available because of a strong budget position. The Howard government acknowledged road funding infrastructure would be the best investment of these surplus funds as it would be of long-term benefit to the nation. In the second reading speech it was indicated that government was serious about the renewal of local roads. It recognised they were an essential element to the economic and social infrastructure of Australia's communities—rural, regional and metropolitan. The Howard government was aware that local councils, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, were faced with significant problems of maintaining local roads from within existing funding. They also noted that the economic and social importance of local roads was increasing with the expansion and emergence of rural industries.
Having lived my whole life in Katanning, some 280 kilometres from Perth, I can tell you that local roads are an essential feeder to other parts of the transport system, especially between rural, regional and urban areas. They are vital to the sustainability and recovery of rural and regional Australia. Access to education, health care, commercial shopping and other amenities is dependent on local roads. Although the program has gone through several phases, all the key features from its introduction in 2000 are still current in the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, said:
We are moving to deliver the infrastructure Australia critically needs … which, over six years, will build the vital road and rail projects to improve efficiency, boost productivity and drive Australia's economy forward.
This cannot happen without funding to maintain local roads in rural and regional areas. With an electorate that covers over 900,000 square kilometres, road infrastructure is very important to the people living in O'Connor, mainly because there are very few alternatives to driving everywhere. As an example, to drive from Perth to Esperance, a tourist destination within the electorate, you must drive 715 kilometres on a single-lane highway. In travelling to Esperance, you will drive through six local council areas just in the O'Connor electorate. Those councils—Brookton, Corrigin, Kondinin, Kulin, Lake Grace and Ravensthorpe—are all responsible for the maintenance of the roads in their area.
On top of this, transport infrastructure is vital to Australian agriculture, with the industry relying on an efficient and well-connected network to move livestock and grain. The O'Connor electorate has agriculture such as cattle, sheep, wheat, canola and barley, which all require roads for transport. If we are to enhance Australia's economic growth and productivity, open up opportunities for jobs and access to markets, and improve the efficiency and safety of our transport and freight networks, then infrastructure investment is critical.
The Roads to Recovery program is an essential element in local government's ability to maintain and upgrade local roads. It is an outstanding example of a partnership between national and local governments and of providing direct funding to local communities. The cost of maintenance on local roads is immense and, although largely met by rates, requires extra funding. A number of roads are now reaching the end of their economic life and their replacement costs cannot be met by local governments alone.
Since 2000, the much needed Roads to Recovery funding has helped local government begin to address the backlog of local road maintenance, improving safety and transport efficiency and stimulating economic development across the country. Under the program, direct funding to local councils is distributed according to a formula based on population and road length set by the local government grants commission in each state. The funding through the Roads to Recovery program is untied grants, which provide the freedom for local governments to make their own decisions.
The O'Connor electorate has 43 local governments, which were awarded a combined total of $18,952,000 in the 2013-14 Roads to Recovery funding allocations. I will take this opportunity to tell you about just a few projects that have only been made possible through Roads to Recovery funding. In the 2013-14 funding allocation, the Shire of Esperance was awarded $1.26 million in untied funding, which has allowed the council to fund six projects ranging in cost from $48,000 to $650,000. One project was the Coolinup Road upgrade, a project of $650,000, which was required as the road had reached the end of its design life. To ensure a safe road for drivers, 4.6 kilometres of the road had a full-width reconstruction completed, and the road was widened to 7.4 metres. A further $300,000 was required to upgrade two kilometres of the Gibson East Road because the existing road surface had cracked and was starting to pothole, due to it reaching the end of its design life. The road had a full-width reconstruction and was widened to 7.4 metres. Without the Roads to Recovery program, the Shire of Esperance would not be able to fund either of these projects, nor the other four projects that I have not specified. With close to $1 million spent on these two projects alone, there is no way the Shire of Esperance could fund this out of their own resources. This would mean the people living and travelling in this area would be seriously disadvantaged.
The City of Albany has used their 2013-14 funding allocation of $1.94 million on eight separate projects, including the Willyung Road upgrade. Due to expansion and development, the traffic along this 1.7 kilometre stretch of road increased, and subsequently the pavement was wearing out. The road was also of insufficient width. So, with this funding, the City of Albany was able to reconstruct the pavement and widen the road to seven metres. The total cost of the project is estimated at $600,000, with $200,000 coming from the Roads to Recovery program.
The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has used their Roads to Recovery allocation of $1.1 million to fund five reconstruction projects. The five projects include: the Bourke Street reconstruction; the Connolly Street reconstruction, the Cheetham Street reconstruction, the Moran Street reconstruction and the Hampden Street reconstruction. Although these five projects might not be considered glamorous, they are much-needed asset management replacement to serve the needs of the community and the city's infrastructure replacement backlog.
At the Shire of Pingelly, the $994,000 they were allocated through the 2013-14 Roads to Recovery program has
been spent on two separate projects. Funding of $697,037 went towards bridge refurbishment and maintenance works. The remaining Roads to Recovery funding was allocated to a road sealing program.
The Shire of Dundas has used their Roads to Recovery allocation to put in place a resealing program in Norseman. This program is based on resealing all the existing town streets in Norseman and Eucla over a 10-year period, to maintain the current level of service to residents and visitors in these towns. Barry Gibbs, the works manager for the Shire of Dundas has said: 'If this funding was not available for the shire, the shire would be looking at sealing one or two streets a year. The level of maintenance and reconstruction would then compound and increase, which would lead to the shire having to use more rates money on roadworks. This means less money would be available for other community projects like youth services and grants to community groups that are an important part outback life.'
The Shire of Dundas bitumen sealing works for 2013-14, made available by the Roads to Recovery program, has seen 21 projects undertaken. That is a far cry from the one or two that the shire would be able to complete on rates income alone. These projects, along with many others in the O'Connor electorate, were all funded by the Australian government through the Roads to Recovery program. The funding has been a huge help to the local councils involved. It is also a great example of how local councils are working closely with the Australian government to deliver projects that make a real difference locally.
In the 14 years that the Roads to Recovery program has been running, there have been various reviews undertaken and academic papers written on the program. The Auditor-General has also undertaken two separate
performance reviews. In the academic paper, Bang for the Buck? An Evaluation of the Roads to Recovery Program (2013), the report concluded:
Taking stock of the available evidence there is little doubt that the R2R Program provided a much needed injection of funds, which has helped to alleviate the severe financial distress facing Australia local government and therefore ameliorate the deterioration of local road infrastructure.
Separately to this, a key success factor for the Roads to Recovery Program is the simple administrative system which allows the maximum funding to go to roadworks, as determined by local councils, who know local transport needs and priorities. Without the Roads to Recovery program, the people of O'Connor would miss out on $18 million worth of road infrastructure upgrades and would be severely disadvantaged. There is already a lack of public transport and rail infrastructure in the electorate. We can alleviate this by providing the funding to ensure safer and more efficient roads.
The Roads to Recovery Program will not be able to continue without the amendments to the NBP act in this bill as the act specifies the Roads to Recovery funding period as ending on 30 June 2014. The government is committed to supporting Australia's regions and to delivering funding where it is best needed. Another five years of Roads to Recovery funding will allow local councils to continue to maintain their road infrastructure, facilitate economic growth and diversity, and enhance liveability across regional Australia. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:37): Whenever I listen to this debate about infrastructure and the number of times the Prime Minister has talked about it in the House, I get a sense of deja vu. I am hearing things that leave me trying to work out where I have heard them before. It seems that our Prime Minister must have a fascination with everything that the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell, does, because in so many instances they are literally carbon copies of each other in their approach. For example, back in 2011 I saw a document circulating in New South Wales called 'A contract with New South Wales' to be entered into by Barry O'Farrell which referred to the party that was in favour of individual contracts bringing a collective agreement with the people of New South Wales. Congratulations on that—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: I'll get to it, don't you worry, Member for Gippsland. It was a contract with New South Wales obviously designed because members of the coalition know that the public suspects that they fail to bring the public along with them in believing that they will actually keep their promises. So in 2011 we had a contract with New South Wales. Then what happened in last year's federal election? We have a contract with Australia signed by the Prime Minister. So it goes from New South Wales to the national level. We have it here and it is signed by Tony Abbott, so it must mean that he is going to follow through on what he says.
I keep hearing the Prime Minister talk about how he is going to be the infrastructure Prime Minister, so I go back in time again and I see a reference in 2010 to someone trying to equate themselves with leadership and the provision of infrastructure. Who was it? It was the then opposition leader in New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, who said in December 2010 that he wanted to be seen as the infrastructure premier and that he would 'forfeit his leadership' if he could not deliver on his key promises. I fast-forward in time after Barry O'Farrell said that and I get to another document, which was released on 5 September last year, member for Gippsland. It was released by your illustrious leader, Tony Abbott, who said, 'If elected, I want to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister.' So everything that Barry O'Farrell does, Tony Abbott copies. I note that he did not say he would resign if he does not fulfil his commitments at the federal level, but on everything else he copies him. Tony Abbott to Barry O'Farrell is sort of like Marmite to Vegemite—it tries hard but it just cannot make it. People just cannot sign up to the original being replicated in this case.
But it does not stop there; it just keeps on going. For example, Barry O'Farrell comes up with the idea of WestConnex. Notionally, you would agree with the idea to extend the M4 and make sure that it goes on into the city, because people in Western Sydney know that this has plagued transport, it has been the missing link in trying to get people moving more. But the O'Farrell government not only does not extend it all the way to the airport or into the city, they also impose a toll on parts of the M4 that were already paid for by Western Sydney motorists. That is scandalous, because the people in Western Sydney who dug into their pockets and paid for that roadway should not be hit again by this government. But they do it, and at the federal level Tony Abbott supports it.
Mr Chester: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Chifley has been here for long enough to know that he should refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Yes.
Mr HUSIC: The Prime Minister backs this notion of WestConnex reimposing a toll on the people of Western Sydney and does not explain to people that that funding is contingent on the toll. Then what happens? There is a suggestion that we will do an extension from the M2 to the F3. And what do they propose calling it? This will not be called WestConnex; now it is going to be called NorthConnex. Yet another example of original thinking from the coalition!
What was even better was that two Sundays ago we had the coalition at the federal level turn up with the coalition at the state level and try to suggest that this was something that they came up with. Wrong. What actually happened was that they picked up a previous idea and claimed it as their own, and we saw the member for Wide Bay—
Mr Chester: The Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr HUSIC: or, should I say, the Prime Minister, announcing this NorthConnex link. The issue is that the former Labor government actually spent quite a deal of time working with the New South Wales government to ensure that the money was put there so we could get started on that. We worked constructively with Transurban, who runs much of Sydney's road network and who is also responsible for the M2 and M7, and we will be proud to see a project that will see significant congestion avoided by getting rid of 21 sets of traffic lights. We dedicated significant government investment towards that, with an agreement from each level of government. It was about $400 million originally and we had to go back to augment that, but the key thing was that this was included in the 2013 budget as a result of extensive negotiation. So, again, we have the federal coalition copying and claiming credit for ideas that were someone else's and trying to pass them off as their own.
The pressure is truly on this government to decide whether they are going to simply adopt a cut-and-paste approach to policy formulation and if they will also sidestep the errors of history. Bear in mind that there were two things that plagued the Howard government which this government needs to be mindful of, and they were particularly around the issue of capacity constraints that were brought on by skill shortages and, importantly, by infrastructure blockages. People saw the problems that were occurring around the country in terms of roads, rail and ports, and they will see whether this government will continue in the same vein as the Howard government or actually address infrastructure issues as they arise. This bill seeks to address a number of issues, including continuing funding for Roads to Recovery; acquiring a power to determine a Roads to Recovery list; distinction between national, network and off-network projects; and transport research funding criteria. That is all well and good, and, as the member for Makin indicated, our position will be to support the bill, but with amendments made to it.
We had a number of Labor achievements that had sought to address the failings of the Howard government when it came to infrastructure blockages. That is why, for example, our investments while in government were akin to rebuilding or upgrading 7,500 kilometres of road or 4,000 kilometres of railway line—and these all have major economic benefit. We had a legacy that Labor could be proud of. In six years in office we delivered record investment in the land transport system, including doubling the roads budget to $46.5 billion, which allowed us to build or upgrade those 7,500 kilometres of road. We also boosted Commonwealth road grants to councils by 20 per cent, and we put in historic levels of investment into the rail system—and again I make reference to the 4,000 kilometres of track. As the member for Makin indicated in his contribution, infrastructure spending across the economy rose to record levels. Australia rose from 20th in the 34 OECD nations in terms of spending on infrastructure as a proportion of GDP to first under Labor's watch in the 2012 calendar year. That is something we are right to be proud of.
When you look at this whole issue of infrastructure, and particularly from a Western Sydney perspective, there is a big reason we would be focused on that. I would commend to the House a terrific speech that the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank delivered in November last year to the IARIW-UNSW conference 'Productivity, Measurement Drivers and Trends'. He talked about the important role of investment in infrastructure in boosting productivity and our standard of living, because we do face challenges in terms of trying to boost productivity in the years ahead. He said that few would disagree with the idea that improving infrastructure is important if we are to compete internationally and that investments in infrastructure transport would yield a social rate of return greater than the cost of financing, which he is absolutely right about. He talks about how effective transportation deepens markets and brings new opportunities to businesses. He highlights three challenges, the first being governance of project selection, saying that there needs to be quite a degree of strong governance in place about the way projects are selected. He also talks about the financing of projects and, importantly, he talks about capacity constraints, which again rear their head in this debate around infrastructure and the way in which the coalition will manage—or mismanage, as is the concern—infrastructure rollout. He says we need to find a way to identify the best projects and to find a way to finance them into the future.
On that issue of financing, I might make the point that a lot of people rush to talk about the need to impose tolls as a way of financing road development, but I would be one of those people who says that Western Sydney in particular pays its fair share of tolls. There is no doubt we need to find a way to finance roads. But, for example, if someone in the electorate of Chifley was to drive from Chifley into the city they would pay a toll of $5.25 the minute they got on to Power Street, Doonside, to get to the M2. They would pay another toll, of $6.11, at the M2, a toll of $3.06 at the Lane Cove Tunnel and another toll, of $4.00, when they crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge. For two trips per day—bearing in mind that you do not necessarily pay the bridge toll on the way back—people living in Western Sydney are paying more than $30 in tolls. So while road financing itself is certainly a challenge, the people of Western Sydney are already paying a fair share of tolls and are looking to pay an additional toll when it comes to WestConnex for roads they have already paid off and then paying for anything else this government might be planning for infrastructure down the tack in terms of roadways. The one that comes to mind is getting the M9 in Western Sydney done.
The speech from Philip Lowe, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, is also important because he makes the connection between infrastructure—particularly transport infrastructure—and housing affordability. He says that when house prices are high it is largely because land prices are high, and that happens when there is a shortage of well-located land, which is very important. We cannot do much about the physical supply of land, he says, but investment in transportation infrastructure—making it easy to move around the city—can increase the supply of well-located land, which is an important point. In Western Sydney we need to ensure that transport infrastructure helps to liberate the movement of people across our region, one of the biggest and fastest-growing regions in the country. And we need to be able to do it in a way that is mindful of the fact that Western Sydney residents are already paying a very high price for that roads infrastructure.
The other thing that will be interesting to see in terms of well-located land is the issue of where Sydney's next major CBD within will be. Parramatta often claims it is the second CBD of Sydney. But in fact I think Parramatta is set to lose that mantle in time—and it should, because if we want to have the break between the exodus of people from Western Sydney to the east and back again, we should be looking to set up another CBD not to the east of where the bulk of people live but in the south-west growth centres, where it is likely to emerge that people will live. A lot of the grid structures of the old CBDs—be they in Parramatta, Blacktown or Penrith—are from the 18th century and have well and truly outlived their purpose. What is needed is for government and business to work together in establishing a CBD in the south-west growth centre, where 300,000 people are likely to move. Again, you can look at old CBDs, like the Church Street Mall in Parramatta or High Street in Penrith, which David Borger from the Sydney Business Chamber cites as 'urban failures' because they do not have natural movement corridors. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of things David Borger says these days, but I do agree with him that we need to sidestep the errors of the past and think of a CBD that is in the south-west of Sydney and that can be designed properly with natural movement corridors—and have the infrastructure to support it. This is what Western Sydney needs. It needs to have some vision applied to it, with government and business working in concert, to find a way to break the nexus of west to east travel, to be able to split the movement of people, and to ensure there are jobs in our area, where they are needed most. As the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 points out, we will need quite a significant number of jobs in the years ahead. So, I commend this bill. I do not commend any notion that they will just cut and paste from previous policy. I certainly hope that they will make genuine inroads into improving transport infrastructure in this country.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (12:52): I am pleased to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. Infrastructure is being prioritised by the coalition, as it should be. For too many years we have had infrastructure backlogs that have not been processed. In fact previous state governments were given money and never seemed to spend it on road and other development projects. One of the saddest things about the waste of the last six years was how the money spent was not invested in things that were to do with production and would give the taxpayer a return for their money. We are paying for that, and we have paid for that to a large degree.
I note this bill will pave the way for over $35 billion over the next six years to deliver an intricate infrastructure program—and road and rail infrastructure is what matters. The first job of road and rail is to promote trade and production, and, personally, I think the carriage of people after that is a bonus. The main issue must be allowing your country to develop, to create jobs, and to get stuff to port, because we are a trading nation—two-thirds of our agriculture a heck of a lot of our mining production goes overseas. I believe that in road and rail infrastructure people are a bonus rather than being what we should think about first.
The states and the territories obviously have to work with you—and we nearly have a totally cooperative state system, but not quite, as of yesterday. We still have one recalcitrant state down there in the south, but of course it is not your state, Deputy Speaker.
There are a number of big ticket items in this bill, but I want to focus on the things that are particularly important to Calare, in New South Wales. This includes inland rail, Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot Program, and the Bridges Renewal Program, which is actually very important in our part of the world. There are another couple of issues I will bring up that are enormously important. It is about having the guts to look to the future. It is about having the leadership to make things happen. One thing happening is the Bells Line of Road upgrade, which will open up the whole of western New South Wales and central-western New South Wales, if we get a freeway through the mountain from Sydney. The other is a new dam, which is desperately needed by two-thirds of my electorate, and that must happen.
But firstly, in regard to inland rail, we are seeing progress on this, after a hiatus. It is an ambitious and vital project that will connect Brisbane to Melbourne, and do so very quickly. The provision of $300 million will allow plans, engineering and the environmental assessment to be finalised and allow the various authorities to get on with it. It will also encourage the private investment that will be a huge part of it.
Over the next 50 years the north to south movement is going to be enormous, as will the east to west movement. That is why this needs to be tied with a freeway through the mountains and a better rail system from Sydney heading west, which links up with Perth and Adelaide, and all the rest, on the transcontinental line.
I have heard people make the mistake of saying that this will take a million semitrailer loads off the road over time. It will not do that. What it will prevent is another million going on them. Nothing is going to stop what is currently being carried on the roads. The issue is how we prevent the roads getting more overloaded, and that is what rail can do. It will not lower the number currently on the road. Under our plans the standard gauge line, which runs from Melbourne to Illabo, near Cootamundra, will finish its nearly 2,000 kilometre journey at the Port of Brisbane.
In my electorate the town of Parkes has a population of over 10,000 people and it will be a key part of the inland rail. It is already a key part of the transfer and transport system that affects not just eastern Australia but the whole of it. Inland rail will make Parkes the crossroad of eastern Australia, linking Adelaide to Brisbane—it already links Perth and Adelaide with Sydney. It will become an obvious link, particularly for Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Sydney, but even for Melbourne. It is an enormous opportunity, not just for Parkes but for the surrounding region, including the central-west of New South Wales. It gives the production from that region the opportunity to go straight to the three ports of Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney, not to mention the other grain ports down around Wollongong. It opens Melbourne and Brisbane up. Whether it is mining or agriculture or forestry it will make the opportunities much better. There is nothing surer for a country that allows the transport systems to its ports, particularly a country like Australia, which is so export oriented in its primary industry.
There was a time when Brazil nearly came to a grand stop because of their transport system. It is a similar country to us, productivity wise, but it is just bigger, with a heck of a lot more people. When Brazil ignored its transport system it nearly brought their whole economy to a stop, and if we are not careful it will happen to us. People like Parkes mayor Ken Keith and his predecessor, and the previous general manager Allan McCormack and the current general manager in Parkes have all worked very hard to keep this alive, and I know we helped make it possible for $300 million to go towards that.
The bridges renewal program is very important in my part of the world. East of the Brumbeys—not so much west of the Brumbeys out around Parkes, Forbes and further west—around Cabonne, Blayney and the eastern side of the electorate there are any number of wooden bridges. They are very expensive to repair in this day and age. They talk about 30,000 across Australia. There are a heck of a lot of them in my part of the world and a heck of lot of them that do need renewing. Cabonne, for example, do have one heck of a lot of work to do over the next few years and have worked out how to fund most of theirs. It is a big issue. Timber bridges have to be in good condition to be used. There are a heck of a lot in the electorate of Calare that need to be upgraded or replaced.
I remember when the Roads to Recovery program was established—I think it was around 1998 when John Anderson was the Deputy Prime Minister and roads minister. It is a fantastic program. The last Labor government were not game enough to rename it and it still has the name it started off with. That program is worth $8 million to the various councils in the electorate of Calare. The injection of $1.75 billion over the next five years will ensure that it will continue to upgrade those roads for which councils do not get direct funding. Allowing councils to decide entirely themselves how to spend the funding has been a huge part of the program's success and the fact that we fund it directly and do not allow state governments in—not that I would accuse them of doing anything they should not do, but they are a little prone to getting their heads in the till when we give them money to pass on.
The Black Spot Program is another area where we are able to help councils. I must admit I am not entirely happy with the way it works in New South Wales. I think it is used for too many state roads rather than being used for council roads, which I think should be the main beneficiary. That is something that we need to look at. I am pleased to chair the panel in New South Wales. This program helps councils deal with roads where there has been a history of injury and death.
This bill is there to get on with infrastructure, road and rail, but infrastructure goes beyond road and rail. One of the main issues I have already mentioned is not just putting in an inland rail from Melbourne to Brisbane through the western part of my electorate, Parkes and other electorates but also providing access to Sydney and the country that Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson found 200 years ago on 31 May 1813, when they crossed the mountains and discovered Calare—the best place to discover first. The area really does need a freeway. Governments are trying to ignore it and simply spend money on the Great Western Highway. There are 17 schools between Hartley and Penrith on the Great Western Highway. Would you seriously want to turn that into a freeway? No, you would not. Who would dream of having a freeway going past 17 schools. Basically that is what is happening at the moment. Yes, a lot of money is being spent on the Great Western Highway but they are not turning it into a freeway. Speed limits mean it is terribly slow. It is a terribly expensive project. While some overtaking lanes are being put on the old Bells Line of Road, a freeway is what we need and something that the state must do. They have to have the guts to get up and reserve the corridor to allow that express to happen. We all know where it should be. All they need to do is reserve the land and at least people will then know where it is going to go so it is ready to go.
More immediate than most of those things is that the western two-thirds of my electorate—in fact, beyond my electorate, including places like Grenfell, Cowra and further west down the Lachlan—need water storage. State Water have identified the Needles dam as a magnificent sight, but it needs $3 million spent on it. It is not the first time I have mentioned this in this place and it certainly will not be the last until it happens. This project is absolutely necessary. It must happen and we must have the guts, the fortitude, the foresight and the leadership within the coalition to make it happen and make it happen in a couple of months time.
Calare is one of the engine rooms of Australia, certainly of New South Wales. The industries include energy, forestry, agriculture and very good coal. It exports all of those things. But you cannot go beyond a certain point without water. I am not talking about more irrigation. I am certainly talking about something that will give irrigation more security and I am certainly talking about the needs of industry, mining, development and urban development. It all has to happen and it needs to happen soon.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:07): If there is one thing that is clear from this bill, it is that this government is very good at repealing acts, removing protections and tearing things down but, when it comes to building the public transport infrastructure that this country is going to need for the 21st century, it is missing in action. One would have expected that in one of the few significant pieces of infrastructure legislation that has come in here, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, it would be an opportunity to respond to the fact that our cities and the greater city areas in places like Melbourne, where I come from, are groaning under the weight of a growing population without a public transport plan to meet it.
If one were to come to the eastern edge of my electorate at peak hour in the morning, as the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, invited people to do, and look down the Eastern Freeway, what they would see is cars bumper to bumper and people spending hours in traffic jams wanting to come into the city or, perhaps, to the suburbs south of the city to go to work. What you would also see as you look down the Eastern Freeway from Clifton Hill outward is a great big swathe of land down the middle—a reserve that, at the moment, is largely a green area set aside. It is a reserve going most of the length of the Eastern Freeway. That reserve was set aside some 30-odd years ago for a train line. If you go back and look in, I think, the 1979 or 1980 Melways street directory, what you see is, in fact, train stops marked out along that reserve down the middle of the Eastern Freeway. People were told at the time, 'Yes, we are going to build a freeway out there so that people who have no alternative but to drive can go to work in their cars but there will also be a train line out there.'
If you look at Perth, for example, you will see that with the freeways north up to Joondalup and south down to Mandurah they have done a very sensible thing—which is, as the freeway was being built, they put a rail line down the middle. What you find is that it takes hundreds of thousands of cars off the road each year. And it is no surprise. I have been there myself. My parents spend some time down at Mandurah, and I have driven down to visit them. As you are driving down the freeway, all of a sudden a train whizzes past and overtakes you, and you think, 'Gee, I should have been on that because that would get me to my destination quicker.' When you have those rail lines going down the middle of the freeway, you find people make the choice because people want to do the right thing if the opportunity is presented to them. People know that petrol prices are just going to go up and up, and that building more roads to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity. All it means is that in another few years time those roads will be full up as well and you are going to be stuck spending hours in traffic, in the morning or in the evening, that you could be spending at home with your family. That is why, when it comes to debating land transport infrastructure, the focus needs to be not what this bill is on but on improving our public transport.
In Melbourne, greater Melbourne and Victoria at large, the situation did not get much better after 11 years of state Labor government. Despite having 11 years to build that rail line out to Doncaster, where one train would take 800 cars off the road, they did not do that either. Instead, we saw under the previous, Labor government the hatching of the plan to build more roads—the East West Link. That plan is now being brought to fruition under the state Liberal government. One would have hoped that in this bill we might have seen some greater scrutiny on how Australian taxpayers' money is being spent. But, sadly, that is not happening, because we know that the current government is prepared to take $1.5 billion from the aid budget and put it into the East West Link. What we also know from the business case—not that the government want to tell us because they are fighting tooth and nail against releasing the business case—is that, for every dollar that the Australian taxpayer puts into the East West Link in Melbourne, you are going to get 80 cents back. It is a loss-making project. The only way that you can make it, on paper, look like it will make money is by fudging the figures and by putting pressure on people to include all kinds of other external benefits to bump it up so that, at least, in some sense, it makes money.
This is going to be Victoria's next desal plant, where everyday Victorians will be paying year after year for a piece of land transport infrastructure that should not be there. The winners will be the large private consortia that are going to get their risk underwritten by the public. The losers will be the Victorian public and the Australian public if they are forced to pay for this white elephant. It is going to increase pollution at a time when we should be cutting it, and it will wreck our inner-city parkland and homes. The East West Link will destroy what is good about Melbourne. It will destroy some of the reasons that people come to visit and live in those inner-city suburbs in Melbourne.
If it is built, we can forget about that rail line out to Doncaster, because what is clear, according to reports in the media in Melbourne, is that the only way this project can be close to being viable is by taking over that middle strip of land down the Eastern Freeway and turning it into extra lanes of traffic. If the East West Link goes ahead, you can forget about public transport out to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. That is something that I do not think people in those marginal electorates out in the east have quite had explained to them yet—that this means the end of the train line out so that you can get into the city. It is not just that the space will not be there; the money will not be there either. If we pour billions into a loss-making road project, that is money that is not there to build the rail line out to Doncaster or to build the metro that needs to be built in Melbourne.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you have been lucky enough to travel around the world, you know you have been to a good city if you can get around without having to use a car. With the right planning, there is absolutely no reason why Melbourne or Sydney cannot be one of those cities or why Australia cannot be a world-class public transport country, but it is not in this bill. This bill does create a new capacity for a new eligible project type to allow funding of research and investigation of projects funded under the act, so you can submit innovative projects for consideration. Here is one for the government: why not put more money into public transport? Why is it that we are one of the few OECD countries that do not have a dedicated national line of funding and strategy for improving public transport in our big cities, where the majority of the population lives?
If in my state of Victoria there is a change of government at the election in November, and if the opposition climb down off the fence and agree that they will not proceed with the East West Link, then we have the possibility of saving Australian and Victorian taxpayers an enormous amount of money. I hear much said at times about the question of sovereign risk. It is said that we could not possibly rip up the contracts because that would be sovereign risk. It is not often that I would urge people to take a leaf out of the book of the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, but this is one such occasion. Over the last three years I sat in this place and watched the current Prime Minister, then opposition leader, in this parliament and everywhere else around the country saying, 'Don't sign up to any contracts or projects that depend on us putting a price on pollution, because I'm going to rip it up when we get into power.' We know that the approach of the current Prime Minister had the effect of pressing the pause button on a lot of investments in renewable energy—investments that would otherwise have created jobs and cut pollution in this country. Perhaps state Labor should do the same thing. If they made it clear now that they would not go ahead and build the East West Link in Melbourne, I predict that it would not be built, that the Premier in Victoria would not proceed with his plan to sign contracts before the state election and that we would have a very different outcome after the election.
It is disappointing that, in dealing with land transport infrastructure legislation, we have nothing about public transport before us, but it is not surprising. This bill is a reflection of how out of step this government is with what people actually want from their governments. People want a bit of long-term planning. People want Australia to become a world-class public transport country and our cities to be places that you can get around without having to have a car. People do not want their houses bulldozed simply to fund a loss-making car project. People do not want Royal Park ripped up for on- and off-ramps. People do not want inner city Melbourne to become a magnet for traffic, which is what it will be if East West goes ahead.
I pay tribute to the community groups in Melbourne who, unlike the government with this piece of legislation, understand that we need a long-term plan and that successful, productive, livable cities in the 21st century will be those that are well served by public transport. The various groups in my electorate and more broadly that are campaigning against the East West Link and for more trains to get the people from the eastern suburbs into the city know that the economics do not stack up. As good as the western side of Melbourne is—including the bit where I live—the drivers of those cars that are coming in on the Eastern Freeway do not want to go there. They do not want to go to Flemington or Footscray; they want to get into the city or the southern suburbs to go to work. The best way of cutting our pollution, reducing congestion on the roads and allowing people in Melbourne to spend more time at home with their families is to build public transport. This bill takes us in the opposite direction.
Debate interrupted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (13:20): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to give a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: Today, in the debate on a private member's motion moved by the member for Berowra, the member for Berowra suggested that the funding for the F3 to M2 was not in the 2013 budget and that I had misled the parliament in suggesting that it was. For the benefit of the House, Budget Paper No. 3, on page 89, states very clearly:
In the 2013-14 Budget, the Commonwealth is contributing $400.0 million to fund the F3 to M2 tunnel in Sydney.
That was the basis of the subsequent intergovernmental agreement signed on 21 June 2013 between me and Duncan Gay, the New South Wales minister. I seek leave to table the budget paper.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Robert: Leave is not granted, because we do not need the budget paper; we have it.
Mr ALBANESE: Obviously the member for Berowra cannot find it, so I was trying to help the Chief Government Whip.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
BILLS
Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:21): Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure. To meet the challenges and opportunities ahead, the coalition government has made a clear commitment to building the roads and infrastructure of the 21st century. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 is necessary to facilitate our ambitious land transport infrastructure agenda and to provide sustainable development across the country for many years to come.
At the last election, voters in my electorate of Bennelong joined a chorus of voices from around Australia demanding a government of action, not words, to address the infrastructure problems plaguing our roads. After six years of rhetoric from the previous government, Prime Minister Abbott has already begun to address the congestion in our cities and the neglected transport infrastructure networks around the country.
This bill sends a strong message to all Australians that this government is one of action and that we take our mandate seriously. The present bill is one part of our plan for building the infrastructure of the future. The bill will enable the continuation of the successful Roads to Recovery program to ensure that vital funding for local governments to support the maintenance of local roads infrastructure will be made available beyond 30 June this year. The Roads to Recovery program was established under the Howard government in 2005 and is due to expire at the end of the financial year. This bill removes from the act the specification of the funding period, allowing new funding to begin on 1 July 2014 and eliminating the need to amend the act in the future every time the funding period expires. This will help ensure that the program will continue well into the future.
The bill further inserts a power for the minister to determine a Roads to Recovery list, which is essential for the program to be able to function. The Roads to Recovery list will be exempt from disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and this will provide certainty for the local government funding recipients of the program. Importantly, the bill introduces a new category of project that can receive funding under the act. Projects that involve research, investigation, studies or analysis of investment, or Black Spot projects, previously funded off-network projects and works funded under the Roads to Recovery program, will now be eligible for funding. This funding will also be available for analysis of projects submitted for consideration for funding as investments or Black Spot projects to help inform and advise the government.
Funding for these vital research and analysis projects is in line with the coalition government's commitment to the continuation of the Black Spot Program, which provides funding to address road sites that are high-risk areas for serious crashes. The Black Spot Program has funded vital road improvement projects in my electorate of Bennelong in Blaxland Road, Lane Cove Road, Epping Road, Constitution Road, Quarry Road, Rose Street and Shaftesbury Road—they have all benefited from this program, which helps keep Bennelong constituents more safe. The bill will ensure that many potential life-saving projects will be funded into the future, both in Bennelong and across the nation. The coalition government is working with the state and territory governments to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects to grow Australia's productivity and to improve living standards.
We are a government which recognises the need to work in partnership with the private sector to maximise private capital investment in infrastructure and to create meaningful employment to benefit all Australians. Collaboration between the Australian government, states and territories and the private sector will enable us to successfully deliver the infrastructure that Australians expect. The continuation of funding under this bill will ensure that we can provide Australians with the roads of the 21st century—roads that industry and our communities deserve.
Through the Infrastructure Investment program the coalition government has committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects. This is a considerable investment in Australia's future and in the safety and efficiency of our extensive transport networks. Our investment includes $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway, $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway and $1.5 billion to the WestConnex project in Sydney.
Bennelong constituents will no doubt be pleased that this government's $405 million commitment towards the F3-M2 link project in Sydney will dramatically improve local congestion by diverting traffic away from our electorate. This will save commuters considerable time and difficulty and improve the quality of life for all those currently affected by heavy traffic and delays. Similar projects include construction of the East West Link in Melbourne and the Swan Valley Bypass on the Perth-Darwin National Highway. It will be welcomed by commuters and provide much-needed upgrades to our national infrastructure networks and the connectedness of our vast land. This government recognises the great range of stakeholders in infrastructure development and has sought to expand the types of bodies eligible for funding under the act to further promote research into our roads and rail networks.
A central pillar of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 is the introduction of two new types of eligible funding recipients into the act. Partnerships have been added as eligible funding recipients which simplify funding arrangements for firms without a body corporate structure. This will also benefit non-corporate Commonwealth entities whose functions include research related to land transport operations. The bill includes a new requirement that states and territories notify the minister as soon as possible after the sale or disposal of land that was acquired using the Australian government funding. This will ensure a timely response for land sales or disposal from the states and territories and the Australian government. Importantly, it will also ensure that the proceeds of the sale or disposal are then allocated to new infrastructure projects to promote further improvements and developments to our infrastructure network. The bill slightly alters one of the reasons for granting states and territories an exemption from the public tender requirements under the current act. Work that costs less than an amount prescribed by regulations can currently be exempted from funding. This is being altered so that the amount is determined instead by legislative instrument. This alteration will reduce regulatory delays and create greater clarity in this area. The bill makes no amendments to the national land transport network, which remains a vital component of the Infrastructure Investment program. This network contains the key road and rail links connecting Australia. The significant investments in transport and infrastructure projects proposed by the government will greatly improve the connectedness and accessibility of existing transport corridors and major hubs around the country.
I am proud to work alongside Prime Minister Abbott—the infrastructure Prime Minister—to put our plans into action. This bill is one part of our ultimate vision to provide Australians with first-class roads and rail networks. On behalf of the people Bennelong, I applaud the government for their dedication to improving our nation's infrastructure, for clearing the backlog of vital works and for honouring the commitment we made to the Australian people at the last election.
I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Cohen, Mr John , OAM
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:29): I rise to inform the House of the passing of a much loved member of my local community Mr John Cohen OAM on 18 March 2014. John was born in Cologne, Germany, in 1919. After being thrown out of school at 14 by the Nazis, John came to Australia as a refugee in 1938. He joined the Labor Party in Perth in 1940 when he was nominated by the late Kim Beazley Snr. John later moved to Melbourne with his wife, Shirley, where he became well known as a tireless believer in, and worker for, the Labor cause.
I have many fond memories of John, most recently at Caritas Christi, his mind still engaged in politics. In 2011 local Labor branch members gathered to celebrate John's 70th year of ALP membership. I recall his passionate speech that day about his vast life experiences: in Europe as a young man, his journey to Australia before the war and the role that Labor had played in his life. I recall the great pride he showed in receiving a moving tribute from Bob Hawke, thanking him for his service to the party. He was a man whose beliefs were born out of sheer life experience. He is a deeply considered and passionate man. My thoughts are with his family: his wife, Shirley; his children, Rhonda, Roslyn and Keith; and his grandchildren.
Melba College
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:31): I recently had the great pleasure of visiting the junior and senior campuses of Melba College in Croydon to present badges and certificates to this year's cohort of student leaders. Since the start of the school year I have had the honour of visiting many schools throughout my electorate of Deakin to recognise student leaders. I really love nothing more than meeting the bright young people who are helping their peers to get the most out of their school years, which are for many the best years of their lives.
I would like to particularly acknowledge the student leaders at Melba College because they have gone through a big transition. Their school is a new one, formed recently out of a merger of two other colleges. Under the excellent stewardship of Principal Terry Bennett, the students I met with showed a strong commitment to creating a positive and productive culture at their new school. They shared with me their belief in the importance of leading by example, as well as the excellent ideas they had for uniting the student body, building the new school's reputation and making it a place where every student could reach their full potential. I congratulate the 2014 student leaders at all of the schools in my electorate of Deakin, including the students at Melba College.
Broadband
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:32): Last week in the parliament the Minister for Communications crowed that, since he had taken charge, since we had entered the brave new land of 'Turnbullistan', 28,000 new brownfield premises had been passed by the NBN in Perth. Of course all of this was the result of contracts let and underway at the time of the election and had nothing to do with the work of the 'emperor of Turnbullistan'. Indeed, the acceleration of output has much more to do with the new processes for rodding and roping that have been developed in Perth, that have reduced the cost and delivery times radically—a development that the 'Turnbullistanis' are now reluctant to promote. Many in my electorate are very angry about being annexed into 'Turnbullistan', as it appears that the new regime has stopped progress on the NBN rollout scheduled this financial year in the suburbs of Bassendean, Kiara, Lockridge, Morley Beach and Eden Hill, which have some of the worst internet speeds in Australia.
The multimillion dollar upgrades to the Bassendean Telstra exchange, so it can function as a large fibre access node, were completed in 2013 and we want to know what is happening with the rollout that was on the NBN schedule construction rollout plan in April 2013. They fear the great delusion— (Time expired)
Road Safety
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:34): The A Metre Matters Campaign calls for a minimum one-metre rule for motorists overtaking cyclists. There is a simple logic to this issue. The motorist in a car, travelling up to 120 kilometres an hour and protected by the vehicle's structure and airbags, owes a duty of care to the cyclist protected by nothing more than a helmet.
Last year 48 bike riders were killed in Australia, the highest number since 1997. One of those, sadly, was 21-year-old Lewis Hendy, who died on 29 December. He was struck from behind without warning on a straight stretch of road on a bright Sunday morning very close to my home in Riverside. No law will bring Lewis back, but shared respect between motorists and cyclists, increased awareness and a cooperative approach to road safety might just save other lives.
The A Metre Matters petition asks that drivers allow a minimum of one metre when overtaking cyclists when the speed limit is under 60 kilometres an hour and 1.5 metres when overtaking in speed limited areas above 60 kilometres an hour. I congratulate Cycling Tasmania's Chief Executive Colin Burns and Louise Padgett from the Amy Gillett Foundation for lobbying hard on this issue. I encourage all Australians to support the A Metre Matters Campaign and to download the petition from www.tas.cycling.org.au or from www.amygillett.org.au.
Petition: Medicare
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:35): I rise today to present a petition to the House, in accordance with standing order 207(b), that has been found in order by the Petitions Committee.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the National Union of Students (NUS) on behalf of students studying higher education across Australia draws to the attention of the House:
The harmful impact that the imposition of a $6 fee on GP visits would have upon already financially strained students.
A Universities Australia survey released in July 2013 found that:
Two thirds of undergraduate students live below the poverty line
Two thirds of undergraduate students reported some form of financial stress.
One fifth of undergraduate students have reported going without food due to financial reasons.
Students should not have to choose between adequate mental and physical health and other financial commitments.
As Australian undergraduate students, we request that the House of
Representatives:
Recognise that two thirds of Undergraduate students live below the poverty line and a fifth have reported going without food due to financial concerns.
Acknowledge that students should not have to choose between adequate mental and physical health and other financial commitments.
Refrain from altering the current Medicare arrangements and imposing a $6 fee on GP visits.
from 1,189 citizens
Petition received.
Ms RISHWORTH: This petition, conducted by the National Union of Students, urges the House not to make health care more expensive for university students. Over the course of the university O-weeks over 1,100 undergraduate students were concerned enough to sign a petition that requested that the House: first, recognise that two-thirds of undergraduate students live below the poverty line and one-fifth have reported going without food due to financial concerns; secondly, acknowledge that students should not have to choose between adequate mental and physical health and other financial commitments; and, thirdly, refrain from altering the current Medicare arrangements and imposing a $6 fee on GP visits.
This petition clearly illustrates that there are many university students who are rightly concerned about the impact that the coalition's proposal for a GP tax will have. All Australians, including university students, deserve to get the health care they need, not the health care they can afford. There are significant costs associated with attending university and it should never be the case that students have to make a choice between buying their textbooks and visiting a doctor. The Abbott government must start listening to the many voices, including health professionals, consumer advocates, mums and dads, and now students, who are demanding that the Abbott government rule out introducing a $6 sick tax and preserve our universal health system. I commend the students for making their voice heard in this place.
Brisbane Electorate: School Bullying
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:37): Last Friday, schools and communities around the country, and in my electorate of Brisbane, took a strong stand together against bullying and violence in our schools.
A snapshot of the school newsletters around my electorate reveal the following: at Mt Maria College they describe the three aspects needed for behaviour to be called bullying as a repeated behaviour, the misuse of power within relationships and behaviour which causes harm. Our Lady Help of Christians in Hendra pointed out that a clear, comprehensive and shared definition of bullying is essential to enable schools to identify it and to develop appropriate strategies to deal with it. At Stafford State school, they are trying to change the audience response to bullying by focusing less on the rule breakers and more on the students who do not break the rules—the bystanders and audience for an any acts of bullying. At St James College, the school captain bravely spoke to the assembly of his experiences with violence and bullying at school—a powerful message of growth, forgiveness and restorative justice. And at Holy Spirit primary school in New Farm they used the twinning of the Bullying. No way! campaign with Harmony Day to reinforce the message that everyone belongs.
I thank all schools in the Brisbane electorate for their efforts to tackle this issue, which can damage and destroy young lives. This helps to ensure that all children can have the opportunity of an education that is marked more through positive experiences of encouragement, support and, ultimately, achievement.
Bendigo Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:39): In my electorate, it is vital that the government does not delay the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I am concerned by recent media reports that, again, this issue is on the agenda.
I hope that the federal government will not use the review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme to postpone or delay the rollout. Bendigo was listed next as one of the places for the NDIS to roll out. In my electorate, that would help 3,400 local people with a disability to get extra support and to have more choice over how they receive that support. Currently, the system of disability care is totally broken. It would be an absolute disaster for people in my electorate if the NDIS was delayed and not rolled out.
This Friday, I will learn firsthand how the disability insurance scheme will help people in my community as I take part in 'walk a day in my Shoes' with professionals working in this sector from Radius Enterprises. From previously speaking to them, and from speaking to community organisations such as Continuing Education and Amicus, I know how important it is that the NDIS is rolled out and rolled out soon. These organisations are ready to partner, our community is ready and families are ready. It is so important that the government does not delay the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is important that we get on with job of making it happen.
Braddon Electorate: Mobile Phone Coverage
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (13:40): Recently, I have been in contact with the Sisters Beach progress association which have indicated to me their intention to apply for funding under the coalition government's Mobile Black Spots Project. Sisters Beach is a small coastal town in my electorate of Braddon, situated inside the Rocky Cape National Park on the north-west coast of Tasmania.
Mobile phone coverage is not just a matter of convenience for Sisters Beach; it is a matter of safety for its hundreds of residents and thousands of visitors. Once a seasonal holiday village, Sisters Beach is now home to almost 450 permanent residents. However, this small town swells during the summer months to nearly 1,000 people, with thousands of holiday makers visiting the beach each year. What makes this town so attractive for visitors is also cause for great concern: its remoteness, lack of access and dense bushland.
In 2013, Sisters Beach was placed on a 'Bushfire Watch and Act' warning by the Tasmanian Fire Service, but residents and visitors were unable to receive vital fire updates due to the lack of mobile phone coverage. Fortunately, in this instance no harm came to the residents. But it does highlight the great concern the community and I have for the safety of residents and visitors.
Mobile phone coverage is not only an issue of fire safety but, obviously, it limits access to all emergency services. It is time for this not-so-sleepy town to get the attention it deserves. I will be supporting the residents in their cause.
Canberra Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:42): It is a well-documented fact that participating in the community and connecting with others is essential for good health and wellbeing. This Saturday, 29 March, the inaugural Connect and Participate Expo will be held at the Old Bus Depot Markets in Kingston in my electorate of Canberra, to help Canberrans connect with their community.
The expo has been specifically designed to be inclusive of people with disability, which we know can often be a barrier to social inclusion. The expo is an opportunity for people of all abilities to connect with the Canberra community organisations, to meet new people and to try new things.
The expo will do the work for people who would like to know more about getting involved in the community and getting started on a plan to participate and connect with others. For the first time at one location there will be over 70 groups represented from sport and recreational areas, arts and crafts, music, leisure, cultural activities, performing arts, hobbies and special interest groups.
Most importantly, Canberrans wanting to learn more about the National Disability Insurance Scheme should attend the expo as there will be information booths and experts on hand to talk about the NDIS and what it means for the ACT.
The ACT is trialling the NDIS. To echo the words of the member for Bendigo, 'It is vitally important for all Australians that the Abbott government rolls it out across Australia'.
Hume Electorate: Economy
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (13:43): As we approach national 'repeal day' this Wednesday, I applaud the government's moves in reducing red tape for small business. In my electorate of Hume, red tape is stifling business growth. York Foods at Goulburn is a typical example. The owners, a husband-and-wife team have been in food manufacturing for decades and have produced a world-first product: an animal oil, ready for export through Europe, the States and parts of South-East Asia. An extraordinary 10 months of their valuable time has been wasted on filling in forms, inspections, audits and applications just to get basic approvals for export.
York Foods turns over $100,000 annually and employs just the two owners. But a staggering one quarter of their turnover, $25,000 every year, is spent on compliance fees. Twenty-five thousand dollars a year on compliance!
Removing these kinds of impediments and the excessive costs in time and money spent on compliance paperwork is a clear way our government can help small business.
As part of the government's agriculture white paper on competitiveness, I have lobbied strongly that we take into account the plight of producers who face an uphill battle into export markets. By removing red tape and excessive compliance, the government is giving small businesses like York Foods the confidence to again invest in their future.
Throsby Electorate: Community Events
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:44): Anybody who has spent any time in the Illawarra knows there is a fantastic sense of community spirit and a community willingness to pitch in and help those who are in need. That spirit—that ethic—was on display this weekend when there were at least four large community events organised to raise funds and awareness for community health issues. On Sunday alone, there was a melanoma walk in Wollongong, which was attended by over 250 people and led by former Olympian Stephanie Rice.
I see the member for Gilmore in the chamber, and she would be aware that on Sunday there was also Kiss Goodbye to MS—or the 'big pash' as many are calling it down in the Illawarra—to raise support and funds for people suffering from multiple sclerosis. They fell well short of the Brazilian record, but you cannot beat the Brazilians when it comes to matters like this.
We also had an arthritis walk on Sunday at Reddall Reserve, but a local member cannot be everywhere which is why, as a patron and ambassador for Relay for Life, I spent time with the Shellharbour community during the Relay for Life. We had over 900 people over the 24 hours of the relay, including a team organised by me. We fell over the line and will raise in excess of $100,000. It also gave carers and people with cancer the opportunity to share a bit of time with the community and get a bit of support. I commend the organisers, particularly Tracy Jansen for her work. (Time expired)
Free Meat Week
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:46): This week there has been a campaign running called Meat Free Week, but, to counter that, the National Party and many in the coalition are going to take part in Free Meat Week. In my electorate of Mallee, Swan Hill Abattoirs and Frewstal abattoir are significant employers. The federal member for Dawson started this campaign by saying, 'When Australian farmers and graziers are doing it so tough, to drive to convert people to vegetarianism is just un-Australian.'
Meat Free Week is, I believe, running an anti-farming campaign under the guise of a health program. We have a diversity of foods in my electorate. We want you to eat grapes, we want you to eat asparagus, we want you to eat citrus and we want you to drink wine—they are all grown in my electorate—but we also want you to eat meat. One of the reasons for this is because it is good for your health. Did you know that in 1628 when the Puritans settled in the Massachusetts colony they got more meat in their diet than they had had for a very long time? Within three generations, their life expectancy was 20 years longer.
Having protein in your diet is good, so please, members of parliament and the Australian community, this is the week to eat some meat, have some free meat, get some meat, get your neighbours around, build a community around a great barbecue and have a look at the website www.free meatweek.com.au.
Parramatta Electorate: Pakistan Association of Australia
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:47): Last night the Pakistan Association of Australia held its annual dinner in Granville. The dinner clashed with my flights to Canberra, unfortunately, so I was on a flight instead of being with them, but I would like to congratulate them on an event well held. I have had feedback this morning about how well it went.
The Pakistan Association of Australia was founded over 40 years ago and represents Pakistani Australians. They have provided a voice for the Pakistani community for many years. They are an organisation that I have long had a connection with, having worked with them in my electorate of Parramatta.
I would like to thank and congratulate Shahid Iqbal Chaudhry, who is the president of the Pakistan Association of Australia—he was elected last year—for his work in addressing some of the many pressing issues affecting the Pakistani community, including the need for a community centre, and showcasing the bright and vibrant culture of Pakistan to the greater Australian community.
Their annual dinner was held at the Himalaya Palace restaurant down in Granville, a well-known restaurant for those of us who live in the area, and featured distinguished guest speakers, performances of national songs by local artists and other live entertainment. My state colleagues Amanda Fazio and Shaoquett Moselmane were present last night.
The dinner was a testament to their goal of bringing communities together. They are to be thoroughly congratulated for their work, their voluntary welfare activities, providing children's services and activities, providing religious education and promoting the image and culture of Pakistan in Australia.
Barker Electorate: Trade and Agriculture
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:49): I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the Cattle Council of Australia's president, Andrew Ogilvie, in Mt Gambier. I was very pleased to be joined at that meeting by my friend and colleague Senator David Fawcett, who was visiting the lower south-east of South Australia on that day.
Predictably, Australia's freshly minted free trade agreement with Korea was among the topics of discussion on that occasion. Mr Ogilvie is an active partner and owner of an extensive family-owned beef cattle enterprise situated in the south-east of South Australia and the western districts of Victoria. Thanks to the agreement, Australian farmers will see prohibitive tariffs of up to 550 per cent eliminated across a vast array of agricultural products. Korea is Australia's third-largest market for beef, importing $703 million in 2012-13. So that improved competitiveness in the Korean market is a huge boost for Australian beef.
The agreement is good news for not just the Australian beef and sheep meat industries but also Australia's dairy, wheat, wine, horticulture and seafood sectors, which will all also benefit. All of these industries have a significant presence in Barker and are similarly boosted whenever improved access to key export markets is carved out, as has been achieved by the coalition government via the KAFTA.
I thank Mr Ogilvie for his time and insight and look forward to having an ongoing and productive relationship with the Cattle Council of Australia.
Fremantle Electorate: Health
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:50): A couple of weeks ago I visited the Freo Street Doctor service with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I cannot stress enough the importance of this kind of service, which is administered by Fremantle Medicare Local. The Freo Street Doctor provides primary health care for low-income Australians and people facing chronic and severe disadvantage, many of them Indigenous. Unfortunately, the Abbott government's lack of commitment to Medicare Locals is causing uncertainty and concern about the loss of such services.
Discussion of a GP co-payment is another example of the government's failure to understand the essential features and value of genuinely accessible universal public health care. A doctor in my electorate has written to me today to highlight the inequity of applying a co-payment. He said:
I'm a GP, not a health economist or policy expert, but the proposal sounded dubious to me, so I turned to the evidence. The short version of what I found is this: Are co-payments likely to reduce GP visits? Yes. Are they likely to deter only 'unnecessary' GP visits? No. Might they have adverse consequences for public health? Yes. Will these adverse consequences be felt by everyone? No, they'll be felt more by those who are sicker and poorer.
WA is a high-cost environment with a rapidly growing population, and putting in further barriers to primary health care will inevitably lead to poorer health outcomes, especially for low- and middle-income households. This of course has preventative health aspects as well, with consequences for the entire system. The government simply does not understand the critical value and key principles of a universal public health system. (Time expired)
National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:52): Last Friday appropriately was not only Harmony Day but also national 'Bully Zero' day, so as the member for Brisbane said: we should take the time to consider that bullying comes in all shapes and sizes. And the shapes and sizes are not always what we expect.
We must be wary of falling into the path of only believing and supporting those who we typically expect to be the victims of bullying or domestic violence. We must also train our emergency service staff, social workers, doctors, teachers and others to look out for the unlikely victims, the ones who keep quiet and suffer in silence.
Schoolyard bullies are not always the big kids; often it is the reverse. Workplace bullies are not always the ones in authority. Not all victims of domestic violence are poor or uneducated. Not all bullies are the physically strong attacking the physically weak. Not all domestic violence involves a black eye or visible signs of abuse. Mental torture can be as damaging and sometimes has long lasting impacts and never heals. Not all domestic violence is perpetrated by strong men on vulnerable women.
The only way to eradicate bullying and violence from our culture is to put aside our preconceived ideas and to look at every victim as an individual not as a stereotype. We must give victims of violence the courage to speak up without the fear of ridicule or disbelief.
World Tuberculosis Day
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:54): Today is World TB Day where we raise awareness of tuberculosis and its incidence throughout the world. Last year 8.6 million cases of tuberculosis were diagnosed throughout the world—1.3 million of those cases resulted in the patient dying.
Unfortunately, poor countries have a greater chance and risk of affliction, and women have a greater chance of contracting TB. But the most alarming statistic regarding TB is the fact that almost a quarter of those reported cases are right here in our backyard, in the Pacific. Australia as a wealthy nation must do more to promote awareness of tuberculosis in our region but also to invest in better treatment, and better research and development for new drugs, particularly for the drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis.
I want to thank the Burnet Institute, RESULTS Australia, the TB Alliance and the Centre of Research Excellence in Tuberculosis Control for the wonderful event that they hosted this morning at Parliament House, highlighting the importance of ongoing research in and development of drug-resistant strains of TB.
Banned Drinker Register
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:55): I rise today to try to slash some of the myths being spread by the Labor Party about the impact of the Banned Drinker Register on hospitalisation rates in the Northern Territory. Members will recall that the Banned Drinker Register was established by the previous Labor administration in the Northern Territory to reduce crime and personal injury as a result of alcohol. In short, the register was an electronic database where customers looking to buy takeaway alcohol were asked to provide photo identification.
It has been claimed by a number of Labor members of parliament, most notably the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her captain's pick, that alcohol related emergency department admissions in Northern Territory hospitals increased substantially when the register was scrapped by the Country Liberals government.
Last week the ABC's Fact Check unit revealed that, while alcohol related admissions had spiked, this increase began in May 2012 when the register was still in place. In other words, the register did not stop the long-term increasing trend in alcohol related emergency presentations in Northern Territory hospitals. It is absolutely shameful that Labor is using the misfortune of some of the Territory's most disadvantaged people for political pointscoring. It is just disgraceful.
Hunter Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:56): Traffic congestion on the New England Highway through my electorate is a nightmare mainly driven by the mining industry. I am very pleased to be able to report that part of that problem, particularly in the Lower Hunter, was addressed on the weekend when we finally opened the Labor government's $1.7 billion Hunter Expressway. However, the work is not complete and the problems continue further up the valley in Muswellbrook, Singleton and Scone.
I welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister to my electorate on Friday to officially open the Hunter Expressway and I thank him for the very productive discussions we had on those additional problems.
The Muswellbrook bypass has been in the making for far too long and it is time to complete the project. The Scone level railway crossing has been a problem for far too long. The design is in place, so it is time to finish that project and of course the RMS in New South Wales, as I understand it, is now close to completing a solution to the problem in Singleton. It is time therefore the New South Wales and Commonwealth sat down to talk about ways to fund that project.
These are the priorities for my electorate: the Muswellbrook bypass, a bypass of Scone and/or an overpass at the level crossing and, just as importantly, a bypass of Singleton. These are serious problems for the Hunter and I call upon the government to work with— (Time expired)
Early Education
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (13:58): I recently visited Stepping Stone childcare centre at Kidman Park in my electorate which educates around 150 children. I want to congratulate the 40 loyal and hardworking staff on the positive learning environment they have created at this centre.
I had the pleasure of hosting the Assistant Minister for Education, Sussan Ley, and she interacted brilliantly with the staff, children, management and directors of the centre. The directors were interested to know about the government's approach and funding for professional development in early childhood education.
Still on early childhood development, it was interesting to hear the views of Professor Ted Melhuish from the University of Oxford at a briefing for MPs. He talked about language development and the quality of care being so important in the first three years of a child's life. Studies in Northern Ireland and England show that high-quality preschool improves English and maths.
The coalition's investment in professional development is a step in the right direction. It is the single biggest investment ever in professional development for child care and early learning educators. The program will also guarantee $30 million towards additional training and support for educators working with vulnerable and disadvantaged children, who have the most to gain from access to quality early learning experiences.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member's statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week as she represents the government at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague. The Treasurer will answer questions on her behalf and also on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment from tomorrow when he departs for trade talks in Japan. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on behalf of the attorney and the Minister for Defence.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Commission of Audit
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that Tony Shepherd, the chairman of the government's Commission of Audit, believes it is a good idea to publish its report, will the Prime Minister now release to the people of Western Australia his 900 pages of cuts before April 5? Or put simply: if the Prime Minister will not trust Western Australians, why should Western Australian trust the Prime Minister?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call but he will ignore the last part of the question as being argument and not in order with the standing orders.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:01): The Commission of Audit has done a very good job. It has produced a long and detailed interim report. It has not yet produced a final report. When the report has been finally produced and when it has been carefully considered it will be produced to the public.
Taxation
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how will scrapping the carbon and mining taxes benefit my state of Western Australia?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:01): I do thank the member for O'Connor for his question. If you are serious about helping families, you have got to be serious about cutting taxes. Cutting taxes and reforming taxes start with scrapping the carbon tax and scrapping the mining tax, which are anti Western Australian taxes. This government is serious about scrapping the carbon tax, so serious that legislation to scrap the carbon tax was the first item of legislation introduced into this parliament. Every day this government gets on with the job of scrapping the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is a piece of economic vandalism. That is what it is. It is a piece of economic vandalism which costs the families, the households of this country $550 a year—that is, $550 a year that the Leader of the Opposition wants families and households to keep paying. But it does not just cost families $550 a year. Over time, it will strip $1 trillion out of Australia's cumulative GDP; it will cut iron production by 20 per cent; it will cut aluminium production by over 60 per cent; and the gross national income per head—the money that each of us get every year—will be almost $5,000 a year less with a carbon tax than without one. That is why we will always strive and we will not rest until this carbon tax is gone.
The carbon tax is an anti Western Australian tax because Western Australia is Australia's energy capital. The mining tax is an anti Western Australian tax because Western Australia is the iron ore capital of this country. Everyone knows that these are bad taxes, even the Leader of the Opposition knows that the mining tax is a bad tax. That is why every time he is asked about it in Western Australia, he is reduced to bumbling incoherence. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the carbon tax is a bad tax and that is why before the election he promised to terminate it.
But it just gets worse. Last Thursday in TheWest Australian Labor candidates were saying that they are scrapping the carbon tax. On the very day Labor is saying it is scrapping the carbon tax in Perth, it is voting for it in Canberra. You cannot trust members opposite anywhere near an economy and you cannot trust this Leader of the Opposition with the truth.
National Commission of Audit
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the government has had the Commission of Audit report for over a month, will the Prime Minister now release the secret report to the people of Western Australia before they vote?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: We will have silence. The member for Fremantle has asked her question and the Prime Minister is answering.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): We will release the Commission of Audit report once we have the final report and once we have fully considered it. There is nothing wrong with this because when the former government got the Gonski review, it considered it for at least two months. When the former government got the tax review from Ken Henry, it considered for over four months. This is some so unobjectionable that when the frontbencher, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, was asked about this, she said, ' I think we put it out was it three or four months later? I can't recall, I wasn't—' and David Speers says of the Henry review, Why did you sit on it that long?' And Penny Wong says, 'Probably because we were considering it.'
We will carefully consider the Commission of Audit report as an adult government would do. When we have carefully considered the report, we will publish it.
Mining
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of repealing the mining tax? What is the benefit to the people of Western Australia and elsewhere—in particular, to the people of Durack—when governments pursue stable and consistent policymaking?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:07): It is a very good question, and it is no surprise that it comes from a Western Australian who went to the last election advocating the repeal of the carbon tax and the mining tax, because it is in the best interests of the people of Western Australia to get rid of those taxes. The member for Durack is not the only person I listen to carefully from Western Australia. I have been thinking carefully about the member for Perth over there, who has just had a meteoric rise; she is now not just a spokesperson for Perth but for the Labor Party in the whole of Western Australia. I reflected carefully on her words last week when she said, 'I think it would be fair to say the mining tax has not done the job that it was designed to do.'
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: That's what I think. It was not doing the job it was designed to do.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: So I went back to the original version of the mining tax and found out that the original version next year was meant to raise $12½ billion in one year. Then of course in the 2010 election it was reduced down to $6½ billion. Then, in the old member for Lilley's second-last budget, he halved it to $3.2 billion and then he reduced it in his last budget to $1 billion. Then, just before the election, Labor said: 'Don't worry. It will raise somewhere between $300 million and $800 million.' But, all the time, this tax has $16 billion of expenditure against it.
And they are not very good with maths. They usually promote the people who are the worst at maths, so I think the member for Perth has a meteoric rise ahead of her, because she said, only on the weekend, when asked about how much the mining tax is raising, 'Well, I think we are getting, I think, sort of around $300,000, $500,000, $500 million a year. So it is not an extreme tax.' Who would have done this transcript? The office of the member for McMahon apparently typed up the transcript. But it gets better. She said, 'Look, the companies that paid the tax—BHP, Rio, FMG—they have all recorded record profits.' The only problem is: two of those three companies have said they are not paying any of the tax. Rio said in a report to this parliament that they put it to the exchange; they are not paying any mining tax. FMG said they are not paying any mining tax. The member for Perth is on a meteoric rise. You could be the Leader of the Opposition within 12 months.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: The best numeracy skills in the entire Labor Party rest in the member for Perth and her seat.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: The bottom line is: this is a tax that is bad for Western Australia. The fact is that, if the Labor Party does not understand the tax, then the Western Australians will not buy it.
Employment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports that Senator Abetz sought to 'massage' jobs data to help the government meet the Prime Minister's one million jobs promise. Prime Minister, why is the government spending more time fighting the facts than fighting for jobs?
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand will withdraw those remarks.
Mr Watts: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:10): If members opposite were serious about creating and protecting jobs, they would be joining the government in scrapping the carbon tax and the mining tax. That is what they would be doing. They would be joining this government in scrapping these job-destroying, anti Western Australian taxes. That is what they would be doing.
Ms Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The question goes to an important issue—that is, as to what Senator Abetz did in trying to vary some of the presumptions on employment. It is a serious question and deserves to be treated as such.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call and will answer the question.
Mr ABBOTT: The insinuations in the Leader of the Opposition's question are simply false, as a statement released by the Department of Employment today makes absolutely crystal clear. I tender the statement from the Department of Employment.
Economy
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the trends in spending and debt inherited by the coalition government? How will fixing the budget help the people of Western Australia and elsewhere?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:14): It is a hugely important issue. The Labor Party have left a legacy of debt and deficit on a scale that Australia has not seen for some period of time; the deficit being $123 billion in accumulated deficits over the next four years, and $667 billion in debt if remedial action is not taken.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer has the call. The member for Grayndler will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: The IMF recently found that, in the six years from 2012 to 2018, Australia's real expenditure growth is forecast to rise by nearly 16½ per cent, which is twice the average of the rest of the IMF and double the IMF 17 advanced economies. So Labor has locked-in expenditure growth higher than any other of the top 17 nations in the IMF.
On the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition asked the question at the launch of the Western Australian Senate campaign: 'Do we give power to those who seek to whittle away our standard of living?' It is really a rhetorical question, because, as Dr David Gruen illustrated in a number of speeches—and as you can see on this graph—Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, under Labor there is actually a significant drop in the standard of living.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
Mr HOCKEY: I will table it.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. The point of order I have no doubt is on props. We do not use props. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr Burke: But he did just use a prop.
The SPEAKER: I am just telling him not to, so resume your seat; you are right.
Mr HOCKEY: Dr David Gruen also identified that, if current trends continue, Australia would need to have the very best productivity growth it has had in 60 years just to maintain our standard of living. Just to maintain our standard of living we need to break every productivity record as a result of what Labor left behind—and that comes from the deputy secretary of the Treasury, which I also table.
The bottom line here is that if we are to maintain our standard of living as a nation we have to fix the budget and we have to undertake the reform that Labor avoided. In fact, recklessly, they spent more money than they were ever going to collect. This is a challenge for Australia; it is not just for this government. Whoever is elected has to do the hard yards, and it starts in the May budget. That is not the end of the story; it starts then. It is going to take years to climb this mountain, but we in the coalition are absolutely determined to climb the mountain.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: We are determined that we will not leave Australians with a lesser quality of life than that which we have inherited because of the largesse of Labor.
Employment
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reported attempts by the employment minister to manipulate departmental publications to fit the government's 'one million jobs' pledge. Given the government's mid-year economic update showed jobs growth falling well short of the government's 'one million jobs' pledge, does the government stand by the economic assumptions in the mid-year economic update?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:16): Of course we stand by the mid-year economic update, and we absolutely reject the insinuation in the shadow Treasurer's question—which in fact was totally refuted by the statement issued earlier today by the Department of Employment.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (14:17): My question is to the Treasurer. The GST reimburses states for losses of revenue through the abolition of state taxes. Why do the Australian and Western Australian governments allow GST raised in Western Australia to be spent in eastern states? Regardless, why doesn't Western Australia receive all the GST raised in Western Australia? Has the loss of GST caused Western Australia to lose its AAA rating? Do the Liberal Party and the Labor Party care more about the seats in eastern states?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:17): I am not going to quote the exact date that we started the Commonwealth Grants Commission, but quite obviously there has been a formula in place for more than half a century in relation to the distribution of funds. It primarily came out of events around the early part of the 20th century when the Commonwealth increased its taxation powers and then distributed money back to the states. For most of the period since the original grants commission formula started, Western Australia was a recipient state. In fact, it was a recipient state at various times in the last two decades.
Western Australia has done so well—of which we should all be proud. It is a great story about enterprise. It is a great story about innovation. It is a great story about being able to harness the resources available to the people of the state and of the nation for the benefit of the people of the state and the nation. That is what Western Australians have done, and they have done it incredibly successfully. In the latest redistribution—which I will release after we meet with the treasurers in the next couple of weeks—Western Australia actually does better than it was expecting. It is a significant improvement on the state budget, and Western Australians should be celebrating that.
Ultimately, when it comes down to the distribution of money, if, in your own determination, you are going to give one state more money, you have to take it off another state. I would invite the honourable member to identify which states he would like to take the money off. Would it be Queensland? Would he like to reduce the GST allocation to Queensland to improve the GST allocation to Western Australia? Or would it be Victoria or another state? There is a pool and there is an independent commission that determines how it is allocated. Western Australia is actually the beneficiary this year of that distribution. But, ultimately, these are issues that are left in the hands of the independent commission.
Carbon Pricing
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to figures released by the Clean Energy Regulator that show that the carbon tax has hit BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina with at least $56 million in higher costs in the last financial year. Are there any plans to further extend the reach of the carbon tax that will further impact on Western Australian businesses and families?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:20): I particularly want to thank the member for Forrest, because Western Australian firms have been hit by the carbon tax and are being hit by the carbon tax. In particular, let us begin with this: a $627 million hit last year alone on Western Australian firms, with $344 million of that on electricity, $182 million of that on mining and manufacturing and $94 million of that as a hit to gas. The example was given of BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina. That is a $56 million hit on that operation. Other examples are: Yara Pilbara Fertilisers, $35 million; Pilbara Iron, $16 million; CSBP Fertilisers, $14 million; and Murrin Murrin nickel, $11 million. Those examples continue right throughout operations across Western Australia.
But of course the question asked was whether or not the tax was likely to be extended. As honourable members would know, 75,000 firms in Australia are already hit not just by the carbon tax but also by the off-road diesel fuel component of the carbon tax. That could be in warehousing, cool stores and all manner of businesses—small and large. But let us remember this, because the Leader of the Opposition has been wonderfully silent since the election: their policy was and continues to be to increase and to extend the reach of the carbon tax. Their policy was and continues to be to add the carbon tax to on-road diesel from 1 July this year.
Today is your chance, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Will you now rule out, in any form—whether it is in this House or outside of this House, whether it is in a press conference or actually when you go to the people of WA—that the Labor Party's policy continues to be to extend the carbon tax to on-road diesel? It is a very simple test. You can run but you cannot hide. The policy is to extend the carbon tax to on-road diesel. Between now and the Western Australian Senate vote, here is the chance for the Western Australian people to know: does the Labor Party want to extend the carbon tax? Is it still its policy to extend the carbon tax to on-road diesel? Somewhere, sometime, that question has to be answered, because at this moment it is the policy, and if it is not the policy and if you are walking away from the carbon tax, everybody deserves to know. So, right now, we have a $627 million hit. We have 75,000 firms around Australia being hit by the off-road diesel. But it is the Leader of the Opposition's plan to extend that diesel tax— (Time expired)
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his answer in the House last week that it is not possible to say how much the budget deficit had been blown out as a result of the government's changes in economic assumptions in the midyear forecast. I also refer the Treasurer to pages 29 and 30 of that forecast, which actually outline a $5.7 billion blow-out driven by his changes to economic assumptions. Why did the Treasurer mislead the House?
The SPEAKER: The honourable member will rephrase his question. The last part of his question is not within the standing orders. He knows that if he wants to make that there are other forms of the House to do it.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of practice is that to use whether someone deliberately misled and to take into account the entire context of the question is what is before us at this moment—
Mr Pyne: Rubbish!
Mr Burke: That is exactly what practice says, and the Leader of the House knows it. Madam Speaker, if it is asked in the form of a question there must be a context which is asking whether or not this is so. It cannot be seen as an allegation. It is a question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order, and I have said to the member for McMahon that he may rephrase his question so that it may be answered.
Mr BOWEN: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his answer in the House last week that it is not possible to say how much the budget deficit had been blown out as a result of his changes to economic forecasts in the outlook. I also refer the Treasurer to pages 29 and 30 of the outlook, which actually show a $5.7 billion blow-out driven by his changes to assumptions. Why has the Treasurer not come into the House to correct his mistake?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:25): Well, there was no mistake. But I have found a mistake, because the member for McMahon said that there was a $5.7 billion mistake, and you remember that I said, 'Where did you get that from?' and he said 'Michael Pascoe,' and so on. And I said, 'You should go back to Swanny.' Well, that afternoon the member for Lilley tweeted that there was a $54 billion mistake.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the Treasurer refer to members by their titles.
The SPEAKER: Quite correct. The honourable the Treasurer will refer to members by their titles.
Mr HOCKEY: You've hit me! That is brutal! So you have the member for McMahon saying it is a $5.7 billion mistake, and the member for Lilley saying it is a $54 billion mistake—you are starting to make the member for Lilley look good!
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was referring to a completely different question—I would suggest, quite deliberately.
The SPEAKER: Has the Treasurer concluded his answer? The Treasurer has concluded his answer.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left!
Mining
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how much the mining tax has cost to administer since its inception? How will the repeal of the mining tax help industry in my state of Western Australia and elsewhere?
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (14:27): I thank the member for Swan for his question. He, of all the people in this House, knows how important it is for small business to run at a profit. He was a small business man himself, unlike most of those over there, who have never been in business and never employed anyone, and he certainly understands—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I am happy to do a poll on the other side any time you like. I know the member for Hunter was an auto-electrician, but they are pretty short on business people over that side.
I know that the member for Swan understands how small business works and understands that, for the 21,000 small businesses in his electorate, it is important that they are able to continue to service the mining industry. The mining industry in Western Australia is an enormous employer. Nationally, it employs around 270,000 people, and in total around 800,000 people rely on the mining industry in some way for their income. Western Australia is the mining state in Australia. I do not like to acknowledge that, as a Queenslander, but it is the mining state—at the moment; we will catch them again.
But what do those on the other side think of a state that excels in something like the mining industry? They think: 'Let's tax it. Let's just tax it. Let's not care that they underpin the economy and that the mining industry is the backbone of the economy in Western Australia; let's just tax it. Let's introduce it.' I join with the Treasurer: only the member for Lilley could design a tax that costs nearly $40 million—$30 million to implement and then another $10 million a year. Only the member for Lilley could design a tax that does not collect any money. Only the member for Lilley could design a tax that not only disadvantages every business in Western Australia but fails to—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth will desist. She is warned.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The member for Perth interjects, and we know the member for Perth's view on this tax. She wants to get rid of it. She has not got the courage to say it here, but she says it over there in Western Australia, like the Leader of the Opposition. In Western Australia he wants to get rid of the tax; in the House he opposes it.
We need to make sure that the mining industry in Western Australia pays its fair share of tax. The mining industry pays around $20 billion a year in company tax and since 2006-07 has paid around $117 billion in company tax and royalties. The Labor Party is not happy with that. It would rather design a tax that does not work and further dents the confidence of investors in that industry. If those on that side are serious about jobs, particularly jobs in Western Australia, they should join us in getting rid of the mining tax.
Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:30): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the most recent national accounts, which show corporate profits are growing at an annual rate of around nine per cent. Does the Treasurer stand by his decision to cut company profit growth projections in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to 2¼ per cent, a rate which is less than a quarter of the established long-run average?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:31): We stand by all of the forecasts and all of the projections in MYEFO. Someone had better give the member for McMahon a lesson about the difference between forecasts and projections.
Infrastructure
Mr PORTER (Pearce) (14:31): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on infrastructure projects the coalition government is undertaking in Western Australia and elsewhere?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:31): I thank the member for his question. He knows full well how important infrastructure development is, especially for states like Western Australia. Fortunately, so does the Prime Minister, who announced today the establishment of a new high-level cabinet committee which will oversight infrastructure development in Australia and introduce greater coordination and accountability and make sure these projects actually happen.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth has been warned and will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
Mr TRUSS: The committee demonstrates our commitment as a government to make sure that infrastructure investment in Australia delivers projects that are worthwhile, right across the nation. Once more, they will be projects that are fully costed, fully budgeted and fully funded. We know that you have got to have real money if you want to build real projects. That contrasts a bit with the member for Grayndler, who said in the parliament last week:
Infrastructure development also requires imagination and creativity. If you can imagine the future, you can assemble the building blocks to deliver your vision. That is the Labor way.
The problem for Labor was that they tried to use imaginary money to build their projects! The money was not really there. It was coming from a mining tax that did not really raise any money and from a carbon tax that did not raise any money. It was imaginary money! I am sorry, but you cannot build projects, no matter how visionary they might be, if you are using imaginary money—it has got to be the real thing. This government has a plan in place to build real projects with real money.
In the same speech the member for Grayndler said another thing with which I agree:
Now that the coalition is back in government it has inherited a Labor legacy…
That is right. A Labor legacy of debt: $123 billion in deficit over the next four years. We have a program to build real projects in Western Australia: $686 million for the Gateway WA project in Perth, a project that Labor intended to build using the proceeds of the mining tax; $615 million for the Swan Valley—
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister is talking about our program. He was asked about what they are doing.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This is argument.
Mr TRUSS: I have just pointed out how a real program that will deliver real projects is different from the imaginary program designed by the Labor Party. We will go onto the $140 million for the Tonkin Highway, $307 million for the Great Northern Highway and $174 million for the North West Coastal Highway—those last two projects Labor intended to fund out of imaginary money from the mining tax. We will deliver real projects with real money.
Mr Albanese: I seek leave to table one of the minister's own media releases about a project that is open.
Leave not granted.
Racial Discrimination
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:35): My question is to the Prime Minister. For almost 20 years, Section 18(c) of the Racial Discrimination Act has protected the Australian community from the divisive and destructive effects of racially motivated hate speech while preserving freedom of speech. Why is the Prime Minister weakening decades of protections against racial hate speech? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Attorney-General, who said today in the Senate: 'People do have a right to be bigots'?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:36): Of course, this government is determined to try to ensure that Australia remains a free, fair and tolerant society where bigotry and racism have no place. But we also want this country to be a nation where freedom of speech is enjoyed.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left! The question has been asked. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: Sometimes free speech will be speech which upsets people and which offends people. It is in the nature of free speech that sometimes some people will not like it. I do not like what members opposite say quite a lot, but I fully accept their right to say it.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on relevance.
The SPEAKER: The answer is entirely within the confines of the question.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER: You have just raised a point of order on relevance. The answer is relevant.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I have told you what standing order it is under; I want to raise what the point is. It is clearly irrelevant for the Prime Minister to be defending comments of bigotry in this chamber. This question is about the Attorney defending bigotry.
The SPEAKER: The member for Watson will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well that he may not use the standing orders for debate.
Mr ABBOTT: Madam Speaker, our freedom and our democracy fundamentally depend upon the right to free speech. Sometimes free speech is something the people who listen to it do not like. That is the truth. This government will do exactly what we said we would do, pre-election. We will do in government exactly what we committed to in opposition. In opposition, before the election, we said that we would repeal section 18C in its current form. That is what we said we would do before the election and that, as the Australian people would expect, is exactly what we are doing after the election. This is a government which keeps its commitments. This is a clear commitment that we made.
Education Funding
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Education. I remind the minister of the $1.2 billion in school funding earmarked for Queensland, the Northern Territory and my state of Western Australia that was cut from the pre-election fiscal and economic outlook by the previous government. What would the impact of this cut have been and what has the government done to ensure that all states and territories receive additional schools funding?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:39): I thank the member for Tangney for reminding the House that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister for Education, planned to cut $1.2 billion in schools funding from Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. The coalition's funding promise was that we would put $2.8 billion into schools funding over the forward estimates while Labor's promise was that they would cut $1.2 billion, reducing the total amount of funding to $1.6 billion. I table a document showing the impact that the re-election of Labor would have had on schools across Western Australia. Imagine my surprise when I heard, on the weekend, claims by the shadow minister for education that the government was cutting education funding in Western Australia. Under Labor, she would have been right. Under Labor, Western Australia would have experienced a funding cut. Under the coalition government, on the other hand, she was wrong. We are putting $120 million more over the forward estimates into schools funding in Western Australia.
I do not blame the shadow minister. She was right to be confused. She was probably confused because similar claims have been made by the Leader of the Opposition. He too has said that he was putting $2.8 billion into schools funding, when he was actually only putting $1.6 billion into schools funding. It is like when he said that he was against the mining tax but he voted not repeal it in Canberra, or when he said he was against the rising cost of living but he voted against the carbon tax being repealed in Canberra. The Leader of the Opposition is the Mr Potato Head of Australian politics. You can put whatever face you like on the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If this is an example of the adults being in charge, the minister should be asked to sit down.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business should not misuse the standing orders; if he does he will be asked to leave the chamber.
Mr PYNE: I am sorry if it offends the Leader of the Opposition to be referred to as Mr Potato Head. I am happy to withdraw the allusion. Perhaps he would be happier with an allusion to Hugo, the man of a thousand faces, who those of us from 1975 would remember very fondly.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will use proper terms of address.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: how is it that, given the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order—
The SPEAKER: Which was not a point of order.
Mr Albanese: It was a point of order—
The SPEAKER: It was not a point of order. The member will resume his seat and will not argue with the chair.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Then state it.
Mr Albanese: Sixty-five.
The SPEAKER: Good for you. The Minister for Education will continue.
Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: you are casting this House into disrepute when you allow the Minister for Education to carry on.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw those remarks or will leave the chamber.
Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw, and that is what you should also make that side of the House do.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw unconditionally.
Mr Shorten: I withdraw unconditionally.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House and Minister for Education will withdraw before he continues.
Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I have already withdrawn my remarks. I said that I would withdraw my remarks unconditionally. I also said that if the Leader of the Opposition did not like the allusion, then he could go back further in time, to 1975, to Hugo, the man of a thousand faces. He was another toy to which you could add any face you liked.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I raise the most fundamental of all the points of order, which concerns your role in preserving the dignity of this House. I ask you to do so.
The SPEAKER: It would help if there were dignity on both sides of the House. The minister has the call.
Mr Burke: On a point of order: Madam Speaker, it is that your argument, that you take the reference to your participation based on the debate you see before you?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I am trying to put into context that the problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he has one position for one audience and another position for another audience.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will withdraw.
Mr Dreyfus: I withdraw.
Mr PYNE: Depending on where he is in Australia, he has a different position. Depending on the audience he is talking to, he has a different position. He is no longer the faceless man of Australian politics; he is the two-faced man of Australian politics. He has a different position wherever he is in the country and he needs to show some substance.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. If the member for Grayndler is going to raise argument instead of a straight point of order, he will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I am raising a straight point of order about members being addressed by their name, and you should uphold that.
The SPEAKER: Indeed I do. That sounds like a reflection on the chair, and you will withdraw it.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, it was a point of order. What was the reflection?
The SPEAKER: The reflection you made about the chair. I am not going to repeat it.
Mr Albanese: I did not make a reflection, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Sinodinos, Senator Arthur
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to concerns raised by Senator Heffernan, the Prime Minister's representative on the Liberal Party's nomination review committee, about the activities of former Assistant Treasurer Senator Sinodinos and Australian Water Holdings. Did Senator Heffernan ever raise his concerns with the Prime Minister before Senator Sinodinos was appointed to the Abbott ministry?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to page 554 of House of Representatives Practice—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my left.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 554 of House of Representatives Practice, which states:
A Minister can only be questioned on matters for which he or she is responsible or officially connected.
The first dot-point to indicate questions or parts of questions that have been ruled out of order reads:
statements, activities, actions or decisions of the Minister’s own party or of its conferences, officials, representatives or candidates, or of those of other parties…
Madam Speaker, I would put to you that the question that was put to the Prime Minister is not within his area of responsibility, and former Speakers have ruled out of order questions to do with internal party matters. Therefore, I believe the question—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, it would be extraordinary to rule that the Prime Minister is not responsible for who he appoints to his ministry.
The SPEAKER: The question as it was put, in the words that the Leader of the Opposition used, related to a party-political appointment, not to a ministerial appointment.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to rephrase his question so as not to offend the standing orders, he may do so.
Mr SHORTEN: I think we all know what the issue is that I am asking about: did Senator Heffernan ever raise his concerns with the Prime Minister before Senator Sinodinos was appointed to the Abbott ministry?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:47): The important issue here is the maintenance of high standards in public life. I have to say that, by stepping aside from his ministry while this matter is being investigated, Senator Sinodinos upheld the very best of the Westminster—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is not good enough, under standing order 104, for the Prime Minister, when anything is asked about Arthur Sinodinos, to give the same answer.
The SPEAKER: This is argument now. As you well know, answers are not governed by the same rules as questions, and the Prime Minister is answering the question as it has been asked. He is a minute into the answer—
Mr Burke: I expect he is in the final moments of the answer, if it is like last week.
The SPEAKER: I call the Hon. Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT: As for the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I just do not comment on scuttlebutt.
Asylum Seekers
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the government's progress in keeping its promise to stop the boats? Are there any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:49): I thank the member for Capricornia for her question.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. If the member for Grayndler is calling a point of order merely to disrupt business, that is against the standing orders, and he will be sat down and asked to leave the chamber. What is the standing order?
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, the standing order is very clear and has decades of precedence in this place, which is that you cannot ask a question asking for alternatives. That word has very specifically been ruled out of order by every Speaker in this chamber in the last 18 years.
The SPEAKER: I am sorry, it has not. There is no point of order. I call the minister.
Mr MORRISON: I am happy to update the House on the government's progress in keeping its commitments, because that is what this government does: it keeps its commitments. What it says before the election, it does after the election. But today—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The SPEAKER: This is getting close to simply disrupting the proceedings of the House.
Mr Burke: I refer to page 555 of Practice:
The Speaker has been critical of the use of phrases at the end of questions, such as ‘are there any threats to…’, that could be viewed as intended to allow Ministers to canvass opposition plans or policies.
The SPEAKER: I think if you look at the precedent you will find that I have used the same point of order and it got the same response: there is no point of order.
Mr MORRISON: I can understand why the Manager of Opposition Business would be so reluctant to hear the answer to this question, because when he was minister for immigration his record for boats turning up in Australia is that he could not get past six days. Six days was the longest period of time when he was the minister that we went without a boat turning up.
I am going to refer to the Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, and this is what she had to say today: 'There is an objective fact here that by using border patrols, by using Customs officers and military officers, we have physically stopped the boats.' That is what she says. She goes on: 'One has to accept the physical fact that the boats have been stopped from landing on Christmas Island or being brought to Christmas Island. I think we also in fairness have to accept that it is very likely that many lives have been saved at sea.' So, that is clear.
I can update the House that it is 95 days since our last successful people-smuggling venture. During the same 95 days last year, there were 55 boats and 3,116 people who turned up. The people, the policies and the resolve are what is producing these results. It is a position of conviction, not convenience, that drives the policies and those on this side of the House. As for those on the other side of the House, well their heart was just never in it when they were in government, and it seems that nothing has changed. I read—
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to be directly relevant to the question, the minister has got to actually speak about the government's administration of the policy and not descend into this abuse of the opposition.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Senator Dastyari has given a speech on the weekend and he has referred to the double-mindedness of those opposite when he said:
Labor is and continues to need to be prepared to have an open debate about the future of our migration policies. The fact is, over the past few years we have tossed and turned on these issues.
In order to have successful border protection policies, you have to be consistent, you have to have unity. The only person on that side of the House who has been consistent in their policies on border protection is the member for Chisholm. The only problem is that the member for Chisholm's policies are against those currently articulated by the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. At least there is one member opposite who is prepared to be consistent. For the rest of them it is a cavalcade of every position you could possibly imagine under the sun, except for the ones that actually worked. We know that even now Senator Dastyari is saying that he is uncomfortable with the opposition's current position on offshore processing, so the question for the Leader of the Opposition is: what are their policies when it comes to border protection? That is what people in Western Australia will be asking. They know what our policies are. Does the opposition leader support the policy that is working, which is turning boats back where it is safe to do so?
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:53): I advise the House that we have with us Her Excellency Mrs Marie Chauvin, High Commissioner for Mauritius, and we also have with us Mr Joe Skrzynski, the chairman of SBS. We make them both very welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Sinodinos, Senator Arthur
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports in The Sunday Telegraphthat a Liberal frontbencher has said, 'It's very difficult to imagine Heffernan didn't offer these views to Credlin and Tony Abbott.' Why did the Prime Minister ignore the concerns raised by Senator Heffernan and appoint Senator Sinodinos to his ministry?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Questions based on gossip and scuttlebutt cannot form the basis of questions in the House. They do not go to the Prime Minister's responsibilities, nor his knowledge. Unless the opposition frame their questions more successfully, this question is out of order.
Mr Burke: On the point of order, Madam Speaker: the Leader of the House raises two issues. One goes to whether it is within the responsibility of the Prime Minister, which clearly the appointment of his own ministry is meant to be. The second is the issue as to the specific referencing quote that was provided in the question which if the Prime Minister chooses to dispute he may.
The SPEAKER: The question runs very close to infringing standing order 98, but I will allow the question to stand and the Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:55): As I said in response to the previous question, I do not believe that it is the job of the Prime Minister to comment on gossip and scuttlebutt.
Education
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (14:55): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I remind the minister that last year I wrote to the Auditor-General requesting an audit of the former government's $300 million Early Years Quality Fund following serious probity concerns. Minister, what is the government's reaction to the Auditor-General's decision to examine the Early Years Quality Fund?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:56): I thank the member for Mitchell for his question and note that it was his concern about this process and how it affected childcare operators in his electorate that brought this matter to the attention of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General, with his extensive powers of access and scrutiny, is the appropriate body with the appropriate powers to examine these issues further.
Let us remind ourselves about the Early Years Quality Fund, which was never about the early years and never about quality, but was a $300 million hijack of taxpayer funds in pursuit of a union recruitment drive. Some of the key things that the independent PricewaterhouseCoopers report found when we came into government, I remind the House, were that only 15 per cent of all childcare workers could ever have received a dollar from this fund and then only for two years; it had nothing to do with merit—it was a first-in, first-served scramble for the money; and it did not follow the usual processes and guidelines.
Who presided over this giant muddle? It was the member for Adelaide as minister in charge. And one of the interesting things that did come out of our PricewaterhouseCoopers report was that the guidelines of the then minister said that the minister would advise the sector as soon as possible when the funding cap had been reached—as soon as possible. We know that the fund opened at 11 o'clock on 23 July and closed at midnight on 24 July—13 hours later—Member for Adelaide, and it was your role, according to your program guidelines, to advise the sector. But, months later, people were still using time, money and lawyers to apply for a fund that had completely vanished. There are questions that the member for Adelaide needs to answer.
What a shambles is this modern Labor Party. What a long, long way they have drifted from where they began, from their origins in the shearing sheds of western Queensland and under the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine—where the member for Maranoa wins the booth on first preferences—as a party for the workers. The Liberal and National parties know a union rort when we see one, we know a union slush fund when we see one and we also know—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Silence on my left and right!
Ms LEY: that the interests of the unions as represented by the Labor members in this place are not the same as the interests of the workers.
Sinodinos, Senator Arthur
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's decision to give Senator Sinodinos portfolio responsibility for corporate governance. Was the Prime Minister aware of failings of corporate governance at Australian Water Holdings between 2008 and 2011, including while the former Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos, was chairman, before the Prime Minister appointed him to the Treasury portfolio?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:59): Senator Sinodinos is a fundamentally decent man who has done the honourable thing by stepping aside for the duration of this inquiry, at least insofar as it applies to him.
Workplace Relations
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Education, representing the Minister for Employment. I remind the minister that I have met with small business operators from the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre in my electorate, who tell me they face continued harassment and bullying from the members of the CFMEU. What is the government doing to restore the rule of law on construction sites and to protect the rights of workers?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:00): I thank the member for Ryan for her question, and I can assure her and her constituents that the government is determined to restore the rule of law on building construction sites around Australia. Under the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister for workplace relations, the rule of the jungle was allowed to reign. But the coalition is moving to protect the rights of both employers and employees. We are doing that by reinstituting the Australian Building and Construction Commission, by starting the Registered Organisations Commission and by holding a royal commission into union corruption and union thuggery, all of which have been opposed by the Leader of the Opposition or, at best, have received lukewarm support, in the case of the royal commission. But there has been outright opposition to the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
We are also moving to align civil and criminal penalties for union officials with those for company directors, because we believe that union officials should be subject to exactly the same rules and regulations as company directors. And on that final point, let me say that we have had some support from unlikely sources. The national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, who has announced his retirement today, has given unlikely support to the coalition for these changes. He said:
I can't see any reason why anyone in the movement would fear having the same penalties that apply to company directors. If you're a crook, you're a crook.
Who could disagree with that statement made by Paul Howes, the now-retiring national secretary of the Australian Workers Union? But it seems that the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with that statement. Paul Howes, the national secretary of the AWU, is showing the real leadership that the Labor Party lacks in this place. He is the kind of union leader and union secretary who actually puts workers first. The Leader of the Opposition is incapable of showing that kind of strength of leadership, because he is too scared to stand up to the union bosses who put him in the job. He cannot stand up to the union bosses because the faceless men of the Labor Party put him into power. The people's choice is sitting over there; the union's choice is sitting in front of the Prime Minister—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. If this is meant merely to interrupt proceedings, it will be out of order. What is the point of order?
Mr Burke: It relates to the standing order referring to tedious repetition.
The SPEAKER: That does not apply to question time, as you well know. The member is warned. He knows perfectly well it does not apply to question time.
Mr PYNE: I am not surprised that they make that point of order, because they do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is a union official representing union officials. They do not want to hear that he is running a protection racket for a protection racket. We might have lost one faceless man today, but the numbers are made up by the two-faced Leader of the Opposition we have sitting opposite us.
The SPEAKER: I would remind all members of standing order 65, as was so eloquently brought up earlier. People will be quiet when people are giving their answers and questions are being asked.
Sinodinos, Senator Arthur
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports from Kate McClymont of the Sydney Morning Herald on testimony at the Independent Commission Against Corruption today that the former head of Sydney Water, Dr Kerry Schott, personally warned Senator Sinodinos that he should be careful of the company that he was keeping and suggested that Australian Water Holdings was dishonest. What steps has the Prime Minister personally taken to ensure himself that Senator Sinodinos has done nothing wrong?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, a point of order: yet again, the Labor Party's question is out of order. They cannot ask questions about matters that are not within the Prime Minister's responsibility. Otherwise, we will be having 'how long is a ball of string' questions in question time. They need to tighten up their questions and, if they do, they might well be in order. But they are not in the current form as put by the opposition today.
Mr Burke: The issues that the Leader of the House raises are issues that go to the context in which the question was asked, not to the question itself. The question itself goes to the core of the Prime Minister's responsibility.
The SPEAKER: The first part of the question is clearly in order; the second part of the question is not. But I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:05): If meeting with Eddie Obeid somehow disqualifies people, then half of the frontbench opposite is disqualified. But these are matters that are, quite properly, before the New South Wales inquiry, and they will be dealt with by the New South Wales inquiry. Let me say again that Senator Sinodinos is a fundamentally decent man who has done the honourable thing by stepping aside while this inquiry is conducting its investigations.
Veterans
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:06): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the government's fair indexation of military superannuation will assist retired ADF personnel and their families in my electorate of Petrie? Are there any risks to the introduction of this measure?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (15:06): I thank the member for Petrie for his question and acknowledge his longstanding support and advocacy for the veterans' community. Consistent with our election commitment, and consistent with being a government that does what it says, and says what it does, last Thursday we introduced the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. It has been a long time coming, getting justice for our veterans. It is a proud government that was able to introduce this bill on behalf of 57,000 DFRB and DFRDB members and their families, including 1,234 members, and their families, in the member's electorate.
This side has long recognised the unique nature of military service. We have maintained a consistent and principled position—both in opposition and now in government—on the need to fairly index DFRB and DFRDB superannuation pensions. This is something we committed to in the 2010 election and the 2013 election, just gone. The legislation is clear proof that we will stand up for those who stand for us.
The member also quite rightly asked if there were any risks to enacting this policy. The simple answer is yes. The entire risk matrix sits opposite us, in the intransigence of the Labor Party. We know that in 2007 Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party promised veterans a: 'generous superannuation system'. They were the words that were used. Instead they spent the entire six years of their government defending an excuse as to why they were denying veterans and their families indexation.
Their road to Damascus moment came a mere week from the election. When Mike Kelly's seat was under threat, they rushed through a half-baked veterans indexation policy. Not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions those opposite voted against the coalition when we attempted to legislate for the fair indexation of DFRB and DFRDB schemes. Labor even commissioned its own report, after the 2007 election, to substantiate and justify its backflip. It would have been extremely helpful if there had been a 2013 Labor veterans policy. Instead, all we had was the half-baked, Mike Kelly abridged veterans DFRDB indexation scheme.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he is going to stand in the way. There are 5,438 members and their dependents in WA who are right now waiting to know if you are going to stand in the way. Those 5,438 people want to know if you will stand up for fair indexation, as does the rest of the country.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014: Correction to the Explanatory Memorandum
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:10): A document is presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:10): I move:
That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to Mr Ramsey on the ground of ill health.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (15:10): I rise today to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to do so. This bill will enable the rollout of Roads to Recovery over six years and help to build vital road and rail projects. As someone who represents a third of New South Wales I fully understand the importance of having good road and rail projects. I would like to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, John Anderson, a former member for Gwydir, who was the minister at the time the Roads to Recovery program was mooted. I might also say that it came from a meeting that was held at Moree, in my electorate, organised by the Moree Plains Shire Council.
This bill will continue the rollout of the program until 30 June 2019, with $1.75 billion in funding. As someone who was previously a mayor of the Gwydir Shire Council I have a great understanding of the importance of the Roads to Recovery program. Roads to Recovery has been one of those programs that you will find no criticism of anywhere in this place, on either side of the House. It is a direct connection of funding from the federal government to local government. The programs are decided by the local government, and a large proportion of the money actually hits the asset where it is supposed to.
As someone who represents 17 local government areas I should say that if it was not for the Roads to Recovery program many of my councils would be in a lot of financial strife. Roads to Recovery funding in my electorate, over the length of the program, is something like $72 million. That is not only enabling many kilometres of new roads and road repairs to be laid out but it is also providing a valuable cash flow and resource for the councils in my area.
This bill will also allow the continuation of the Black Spot Program in places that have been identified as high risk. Even though the road toll over the last 20 or 30 years has been halved in Australia, it is still way too high. Unfortunately many of the people who die on our roads do so on rural roads, and many of them are still dying in identified black spot areas. This program will allow funding to go to those areas.
It is important to realise that pretty much everything we buy on the shelves of our supermarkets started its journey on a local road. Roads to Recovery is directly funding local roads. It does not apply to state roads and it does not apply to national highways. It is direct funding to councils for local roads.
In the Parkes electorate, there are many farms and businesses—that rely on local roads—that generate billions of dollars of export income and provide produce that finds its way onto the shelves of supermarkets not only around Australia but around the world. While this program is very much appreciated, we must not think that we are doing enough for local roads. We need to be constantly looking at how we can continue to fund local roads. I would like to mention the Australian Rural Road Group that was formed by the Gwydir and Moree Plains councils. It has nearly 100 members right around Australia—councils that represent the high-producing agricultural shires in Australia and generally the councils that have low population densities but very high productivity. Quite often, the criterion that is used to measure the use of a road and the need for the funding or the upgrade of a road is traffic count. But that is not enough. We need to be looking at the productivity and the produce that come along the roads and the efficiency that that brings.
The advent of the inland rail line from Melbourne to Brisbane took another step forward with the change of government. Minister Truss has allocated $300 million in the next term of government to get that project up and running. The implementation committee for that project was formed and chaired by my predecessor, John Anderson. That inland rail will provide a steel backbone for infrastructure right down the eastern side of Australia. It will be to Australia what the Mississippi is to the United States. We need to start planning our infrastructure around this inland rail line. We need to start to looking at where local road and rail interface and at how we can get the travel time down to the ports and the major markets, and do it in a more energy efficient way. This rail line will certainly do that.
The main rail line that goes from Sydney to Perth runs through the bottom end of the Parkes electorate. To see double-stacked container trains nearly two kilometres long hurtling through the electorate certainly shows that this is the way of the future to shift freight. It is not much good if we have beef from feedlots or grain or cotton that is stranded on farm because of crummy infrastructure. As we speak, the forecast for rain this week across inland New South Wales and Queensland is very strong. That is a two-edged sword. While we will never not look forward to rainfall, it will mean that children will not be going to school and produce will not be going to market because of the state of the roads.
The issue here with rural roads is how did we got to this point? I would like to compliment the Rural Road Group, because they are working on a pilot program with half a dozen or so local government areas in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland that will measure the actual asset of the road. What has happened in the past—and I know this from experience as a mayor in a local government area—is that, quite often, the value of the write-down of those road assets has not been fully displayed. Because of the close relationship between local government and state government and the very parlous nature of the finances of local government, quite often the full level of the write-down of roads is not reported and it shows up on the balance sheet as a large loss, and the next thing you know is that that local government area is under the watchful eye of the state government for being in financial difficulty. So over the years, the actual size of the problem has been disguised somewhat. What is happening now in Moree Plains, Gwydir, Narrabri and some of the council areas in southern Queensland is that they are developing an asset management tool that can be transferred right across Australia. So at one point, as a government we can look at the state of every road in Australia and it will be in a recognised reporting system. We will be able to start to identify some priorities as to where the funds need to go and to start to have an objective look at allocating these assets. The real state of affairs has been hidden for some time. It is time that we looked at managing our assets in a more professional way and it is time that we started tying in the productivity of regional Australia with some of the spending on our road networks.
It does give me a great deal of pleasure to support this bill knowing that we have a government and a minister totally focused on infrastructure, and that we are starting to see a planned rollout for transport infrastructure across Australia and indeed regional Australia. Not only does this tie into the lifestyle effects that I have talked about—getting produce to market, kids to school, people to hospital and the like—but, as we need to be careful with our resources and as we become more aware of the need to preserve what resources we have, we need to be moving this freight around in the most cost-effective way. The road-rail interchange model that is being formulated at the moment is definitely a more cost-effective means to go about it. The number of trucks that that inland rail will take off the Newell Highway will be increased and the number of litres of diesel per tonne of freight moved will be drastically reduced because of this program.
Therefore, I am in support of the Land Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. It is a commitment of $35.5 billion in infrastructure investment. It will roll out over six years and, so, local government and infrastructure organisations will have the confidence to know that that funding is ongoing and, every time there is a change government, we will not have to go into this area of uncertainty. It does indicate that the Abbott-Truss government is committed to infrastructure. It does indicate that I am committed to infrastructure. I encourage anyone that is listening to me today to refer to my first speech in this place, in February 2008. Indeed, this is what I spoke about—the need for funding for regional roads, the need for a railway line from Melbourne to Brisbane and the need for a plan to tie it all together. It is such a relief, and it gives me great pleasure, after being in this place for over six years now, to finally be part of a team that has the will, the plans and the gumption to make all this happen.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (15:24): The purpose of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 is to amend the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009, to rename the act the National Land Transport Act 2014 and to enable the continuation of what we all know is a very important program, the Roads to Recovery program, beyond 30 June 2014. There are very practical measures in this bill. We in rural and regional Australia well understand the importance of having practical measures to deliver critical infrastructure in regional areas right throughout Australia.
The bill also amends the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to combine parts 3 and 6 into one part for investment, to streamline the act—again, a very practical measure—and to add a new eligible project type into part 4 to allow funding of research and investigations of projects funded under the act or submitted for consideration for funding under the act. As we know, such research will inform advice to government and enhance the management of projects. Also, it will add two new eligible funding recipients—partnerships for parts 4 and 5 and funding for land transport research entities and non-corporate Commonwealth entities for part 5—to expand the types of organisations that can be funded to undertake research, investigations, studies and analysis under the act. Again, these are practical measures. The bill also repeals the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988, the Roads to Recovery Act 2000 and the Railway Standardization (New South Wales and Victoria) Agreement Act 1958, as these are all spent legislation.
Amendments to the Nation Building Program are necessary to allow the government to proceed with what is an ambitious infrastructure agenda. I am very proud to be part of an infrastructure government under an infrastructure Prime Minister. The key function of the bill is to enable the continuation of what is unconditionally known as a very successful and critical program—the Roads to Recovery program. This provides desperately needed funding to local governments for the maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure. What connects people and communities, and all of the economic multipliers in regional areas, is mostly because of roads. It is very, very important funding for local governments. When I talk to my local governments, each one of them always tells me how important this funding is for them to be able to deliver what is needed in their particular areas.
The current program stalls on 30 June and it specifies funding to that date. The bill removes the definition and specification of the funding period and places it in the Roads to Recovery list. In practical terms, this removes the need to introduce a new bill to the parliament every time the Roads to Recovery funding period changes, and ensures that this critical program will continue. This is a very, very good measure contained in this bill. It will ensure that that real delivery on the ground in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia will continue.
As we know, and we have heard repeatedly in this place, local councils would struggle to be able to deliver their roads programs, if at all, without this funding. The bill also allows the minister to determine a Roads to Recovery list. This will be exempt from disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Again, this provides certainty, which is so important to local governments. It provides certainty to local government funding recipients of the program.
The bill combines part 3 of the original National Building Program act with part 6, or off-network projects, into one part for all investment projects. This is a unification and streamlining and, for practical purposes, will enhance the operation of the act. The existing parts 3 and 6 contain a significant number of identical provisions and combining them will remove the unnecessary duplication of provisions. The new part 3 for investment projects also includes a new requirement that states and territories notify the minister as soon as possible after the sale or disposal of land that was acquired using Australian government funding. That will ensure that proper accountability is maintained and that there is a timely response to land sales or disposals from both the states and territories and the Australian government. Then the proceeds of the sale or disposal should be allocated to new infrastructure projects that enhance the Australian economy and continue to remove the existing bottlenecks, which we know in regional areas are really important and affect how products get to market. They are things that affect the economies in regional and rural areas.
The bill also alters the value of work that can currently be exempted from public tender requirements. Currently, the amount is prescribed by regulations; however, this will be altered to determination instead by legislative instrument. That will reduce the regulatory delays. It introduces a new type of project that can receive funding under part 4 for transport, development and innovation projects. Projects that involve research investigation studies or analysis of the important black spot projects, previously funded off-network projects and works funded under the Roads to Recovery program will be eligible for part 4 funding. It could also be used for projects submitted for consideration for funding as investment or black spot projects, again to help form advice to government.
This amendment enhances the management of projects and the infrastructure investment program. The bill also adds two new types of eligible funding recipient into the act. Partnerships have been added for funding recipients in parts 4 and 5. This change simplifies funding arrangements for firms without a body corporate structure. Non-corporate Commonwealth entities whose functions include research related to land transport research operations will now be able to receive funding under part 5, which is funding for land transport research entities.
The government has committed, importantly, to continuation of the Black Spot Programme, which provides funding to address road sites that are high-risk areas for serious crashes. There are many of these around Australia, and it is a program that is essential for state and local governments to be able to fulfil their local road safety commitments. Black spot projects are administered under part 7 and remain largely unchanged. The bill makes no amendments to the national land transport network. The network contains the key road and rail links connecting Australia and is a vital component of the government's infrastructure investment program.
Like many in this place, it would not surprise the House that, in discussions about transport infrastructure, the needs of my electorate of Forrest should also be considered. The bill before the House today repeals the Roads to Recovery Act 2000, which instigated the Roads to Recovery Program. It was moved into the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and then the nation-building program of 2009. AusLink was a defining national network that superseded the former national highway system and included important road and rail infrastructure links and their intermodal connections. It was first proposed in a green paper issued in 2002. AusLink connected many of the major economic and population centres of Australia; but, when it came to the south-west of Western Australia, this actually stopped at Bunbury in my electorate.
In the intervening years the south-west has grown significantly. It is now one of the fastest-growing regional areas in Australia. I well understand the budget challenges created by the former Labor government; however, I will continue to work towards having some of the major arterial roads in the south and east of Bunbury recognised by the federal government as roads of national significance. This is important because in the south-west we produce seven per cent of WA's total gross state product and in recent years there has been a 10 per cent growth rate in the south-west. As we know, Western Australia produces 46 per cent of Australia's export wealth. In time, as soon as the budget allows, I would hope that all levels of government would contribute to road infrastructure in the south-west given the continuous growth that we are seeing. Only then will the region be able to grow and develop to its full potential.
As I have said, the south-west is a jewel in the grown of the state's economic and cultural development. It is an environmental icon as well, listed as one of the world's international biodiversity hot spots. The region is also a tourism and holiday destination of choice. The fact that we have major infrastructure through the port is often overlooked. We also have significant exports; over 10 million tonnes is exported through the port of Bunbury on an annual basis. Mining and resource manufacturing are a major part of my electorate, and that is why transport links are so important. It is another reason the tax on diesel fuel—the carbon tax that Labor were to impose in July this year—would have a critical impact right throughout Western Australia and throughout my electorate.
The wide range of activity in the south-west, coupled with the significant regional population growth of over 2.1 per cent a year compared with the state's average of 1.8 per cent and the nation's 1.4, continues to put significant pressure on the transport infrastructure of the region. Frequently I look at the waste and mismanagement in the previous government and think what some of those funds—and even what is currently being paid in interest on the debt that has been acquired—would do to deliver infrastructure in my region.
With this in mind, the Bunbury Outer Ring Road project is an essential and urgent piece of infrastructure. This is a project that has been expanded in stages. I was at the opening of stage 1 of the port access road in 2010. Stages 1 and 2 of Bunbury Outer Ring Road were completed last year. The remaining stage of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road is estimated to cost over $700 million, and that is why I can understand the challenges facing the budget and why, if it were not for some of the waste and mismanagement, these are the types of projects we would be able to fund. I look forward to a very responsible government looking seriously at these types of road transport projects in the future.
In the longer term I can see throughout the south-west that dual lanes from Perth to Margaret River will be essential. It is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia and will continue to be so. It is part of my long-term transport vision for the south west, and of course this is also about the economic development of my part of the world. It is a major economic driver for Western Australia and for the Australian economy. As I say, frequently it is not well-understood that not only do we have mining resources but also we have agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism. I have one of the most diverse electorates in Australia. Of course that brings with it huge demands for infrastructure, something that I know the minister at the table, Minister Truss, is very well aware off from looking at the infrastructure needs across this country. I am very pleased to support this particular bill and to be a part of an infrastructure minister's efforts, an infrastructure Prime Minister's efforts and an infrastructure government.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (15:38): May I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. There is a universal agreement on both sides of the parliament that infrastructure and building better infrastructure are important national priorities and that we as a parliament need to do what we can to provide adequate infrastructure to service the needs of our country and our growing economy in the years ahead. This bill will not only help put in place the arrangements for funding for major infrastructure projects, particularly over the next five years, but also it will set in place a legislative framework which will endure and support future governments' initiatives in land transport. The government is committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century, as the previous speaker, Ms Marino, said and the changes in the bill will help us achieve this goal. The amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 are necessary to facilitate the government's ambitious land transparent infrastructure agenda.
The bill continues the vitally important Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June 2014. Amendments to the act are necessary as it currently specifies the Roads to Recovery funding period as ending on 30 June 2014. The bill removes this specification from the act and places it in Roads to Recovery list, which allows the program to continue and removes the need to amend the act every time the funding period changes.
The bill renames the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to the National Land Transport Act 2014, removing the link between the name of the act and the name of the land transport infrastructure funding program. This means that the act will not need to be amended if the name of the land transport infrastructure funding program changes. It is the most sensible name for the act and keeps it above politics. The bill also streamlines and enhances the operation of the act to benefit the states and territories and the Commonwealth.
The bill is consistent with the government's deregulation agenda, repealing three spent land transport infrastructure acts. There are no regulatory or financial impacts on business and on the amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 or the repeal of the spent legislation.
I do not propose to respond specifically to all of the comments made by members in their contributions, but I do acknowledge their general support for infrastructure investment and for ensuring that we have an adequate program to meet our nation's needs. Some members spoke in support of existing projects, which are in the program, and many others raised, on behalf of their electorates, other major road projects—all of them, no doubt, worthy. They would like to see these projects included in the land transport program in the years ahead. I hope we can continue to build on the foundations of the past and to expand the quality of our road and rail network right across the nation. This legislation will certainly contribute to that.
There is often debate between both sides of politics as to who has done the most in relation to road funding and road construction and I suspect that that will always be a part of the political debate. The member for Grayndler likes to speak with some degree of pride about what was achieved in his term in government. I would just remind him that the Howard government spent more on infrastructure than the previous ALP government and the next coalition government is going to spend more on infrastructure than the last Labor government. The Howard government was the first to establish a national transport plan and I think both sides of politics, while we may have different priorities, have sought to work on stronger infrastructure for our nation. I hope that that can be continued in future.
The government has identified a long list of projects that will be our priorities over the next five years. I think all of those projects will make a real difference. I am sure that in addition—unless this government serves for many decades, which we naturally hope to do—there will be projects that will cross governments. I suspect that the list of projects, in many instances, will be fairly similar. On Friday, I had the privilege of opening the Hunter Expressway, for which the money was first provided in 1997 and its actual construction crossed three federal governments. That is not uncommon in these very large infrastructure projects. In reality we need to work constructively as a parliament to put together the kinds of infrastructure projects that will make a real difference in the future.
The program we have announced and we are determined to deliver includes quite a number of new projects. They will be of particular significance in the cities and in regional Australia. Beyond that we have fully committed and budgeted for the projects that the previous government had planned to fund with the proceeds of the mining tax, which commitments it was never going to be capable of meeting. This demonstrates why this government is committed to building and delivering the infrastructure of the 21st century and beyond.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:44): by leave—The opposition do not intend to divide on the second reading. We do have amendments in consideration in detail but I ask leave to include the correspondence from the minister to me asking whether there would be any additional costs as a result of the change in name in terms of signage. I think it would be appropriate that that be put on the record. I ask leave to table the letter from Minister Truss to me, dated 5 March 2014.
Leave granted.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:45): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) and (6) and (7) as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 17), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved funding recipient, insert:
(aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 26), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved purposes, insert:
(aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 15), after item 7, insert:
7A Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project has the meaning given by section 86A.
(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 16), after paragraph (a) of the definition of project approval instrument, insert:
(aa) in relation to a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project—the instrument approving the project under subsection 86B(1); and
(6) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 29), after item 38, insert:
38A After Part 7
Insert:
Part 7A—Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects
Division 1—Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects
86A What is a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project?
A Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project is a project for which an approval by the Minister under subsection 86B(1) is in force.
86B Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects
(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if, and only if:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the project is eligible for approval (see section 86C); and
(b) the Minister considers that it is appropriate to approve the project (see section 86D).
(2) An instrument approving a project is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
86C What projects are eligible for approval?
A project is eligible for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if:
(a) the project aims to reduce the number of road accidents involving heavy vehicles by targeting driver fatigue; or
(b) the project aims to increase heavy vehicle productivity by enhancing the capacity of existing roads.
86D Is it appropriate to approve a project?
The matters to which the Minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project include, but are not limited to, the following matters:
(a) the results of any assessment of the safety benefits, or the productivity benefits, and the costs of the project;
(b) the results of any research conducted in relation to the project;
(c) the extent to which persons other than the Commonwealth propose to contribute funding to the project.
86E Submission of particulars of projects
(1) The Minister may invite the submission of particulars of projects for consideration for approval as Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects.
(2) An invitation may be given:
(a) to such States or authorities of a State as the Minister considers appropriate; and
(b) by any method that the Minister considers appropriate.
(3) Subject to section 86B, the Minister may approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, whether or not particulars of the project were submitted in response to an invitation.
(4) The Minister is not required to consider a project for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project unless such particulars of the project as the Minister requires have been submitted to the Minister.
86F Matters specified in project approval instrument
(1) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project must:
(a) identify the project; and
(b) specify the maximum funding amount that the Commonwealth may contribute to the project; and
(c) identify the eligible funding recipient, being a State or authority of a State, to which funding may be paid; and
(d) if the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the eligible funding recipient—contain a statement to that effect.
(2) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may exclude one or more specified purposes from being purposes on which funding may be expended.
86G Requirements with which funding agreements must comply
If the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the approved funding recipient:
(a) the total amount of funding that the agreement provides for must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument; and
(b) the agreement must comply with any other requirements (for example, requirements relating to the inclusion of conditions) specified in the project approval instrument.
86H Variation or revocation of project approval instrument
(1) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project.
(2) A variation may be of a matter dealt with in the project approval instrument before the variation, or to include a new matter in the project approval instrument. The instrument as varied must be consistent with section 86F.
Note: For example, the project approval instrument may be varied to change the eligible funding recipient to which funding will be paid, or to specify a purpose that is excluded from the purposes on which funding may be expended.
(3) If there is a funding agreement with the approved funding recipient, the powers given by subsection (1) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.
(4) An instrument varying or revoking the project approval instrument is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Division 2—Provision of Commonwealth funding
86J Commonwealth funding for Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects
(1) Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may be provided to the approved funding recipient:
(a) in accordance with section 86K; or
(b) if the project approval instrument for the project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into—in accordance with a funding agreement, entered into with the approved funding recipient, that satisfies the requirements of section 86G.
(2) The payments of funding are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament.
86K Approval of provision of Commonwealth funding if no funding agreement
(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project to the approved funding recipient. The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the approval.
(2) The funding is to be provided in one or more instalments paid to the approved funding recipient. Subject to subsection (3), the amount and timing of an instalment are as determined by the Minister.
(3) The total amount of funding provided for the project to the approved funding recipient must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument.
(4) An instrument:
(a) approving the provision of Commonwealth funding, or varying or revoking such an approval; or
(b) determining the amount or timing of an instalment of funding;
is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Division 3—Conditions that apply to Commonwealth funding
Subdivision A—Sources of conditions
86L Sources of conditions
(1) The conditions that apply to a payment (the funding payment) of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project (the funded project) to an eligible funding recipient (the funding recipient) are:
(a) the mandatory conditions (see Subdivision B); and
(b) either:
(i) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with section 86K—the conditions (if any) determined under Subdivision C; or
(ii) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with a funding agreement—the conditions specified in the funding agreement.
(2) A funding agreement may specify a condition by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.
Subdivision B—The mandatory conditions
86M This Subdivision sets out the mandatory conditions
The mandatory conditions are as set out in this Subdivision.
86N Funding payment must be expended on the funded project
The funding payment must be wholly expended on approved purposes in relation to the funded project.
86P Funding recipient must give Minister audited financial statements
For each financial year in which the funding recipient spends or retains any of the funding payment, the funding recipient must give to the Minister as soon as practicable, and in any event within 6 months, after the end of that year:
(a) a written statement as to:
(i) the amount spent by the funding recipient during that year out of the funding payment; and
(ii) the amount retained by the funding recipient out of the funding payment as at the end of that year; and
(b) a report in writing and signed by the appropriate auditor stating whether, in the auditor's opinion:
(i) the statement is based on proper accounts and records; and
(ii) the statement is in agreement with the accounts and records; and
(iii) the expenditure referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) has been on the funded project.
86Q Funding recipient must allow inspections by authorised persons
The funding recipient must, at all reasonable times, permit a person authorised by the Minister:
(a) to inspect any work involved in the carrying out of the funded project; and
(b) to inspect and make copies of any documents relating to the funded project.
84R Funding recipient must maintain records
(1) The funding recipient must:
(a) if the funded project targets driver fatigue in an area—maintain records relating to the nature and frequency of road accidents involving heavy vehicles and death or personal injury in the area; or
(b) if the project aims to increase heavy vehicle productivity by enhancing the capacity of existing roads—maintain records relating to how that outcome has achieved.
(2) The funding recipient must maintain the records required by subsection (1) for a period of 5 years, commencing on the receipt of the funding payment.
(3) The funding recipient must, at all reasonable times, permit a person authorised by the Minister to inspect any records maintained by the funding recipient as required by subsection (1).
86S Amount repayable on breach of condition
(1) If the Minister notifies the funding recipient in writing that the Minister is satisfied that the funding recipient has failed to fulfil any condition that applies to the funding payment (whether that condition is specified in this Subdivision, in a funding agreement or in a determinationunder Subdivision C) then the funding recipient must repay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to so much of the funding payment as the Minister specifies in the notice.
(2) The Minister may, by notice in writing, vary or revoke a notice given under subsection (1).
(3) If there is a funding agreement with the funding recipient, the powers given to the Minister by subsections (1) and (2) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.
(4) A notice under subsection (1), or an instrument varying or revoking such a notice, is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Subdivision C—Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement
86T Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement
(1) The Minister may, in writing, determine other conditions that apply to the provision of funding in accordance with section 86K.
(2) The Minister may determine different conditions to apply in different classes of situations.
(3) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke conditions determined under subsection (1).
(4) An instrument determining, varying or revoking conditions is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, but neither section 42 nor Part 6 of that Act applies to the instrument.
(5) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an instrument determining or varying conditions may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.
(7) Schedule 1, item 46, page 13 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:
46 Section 94
Omit "6, 7", substitute "7, 7A".
These amendments go to what I believe is the inadequate drafting of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 that is before the parliament this afternoon. The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program is an initiative that we established under the existing nation building program act in 2009. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as you would be familiar because your electorate in Maranoa was a big beneficiary, it was aimed at improving safety and productivity outcomes of heavy vehicle operations across Australia. It was very clear after representation from organisations, including the Australian Trucking Association and the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, and individual trucking companies and operators that there was a gap to be filled in terms of the program so the former government established the first Commonwealth dedicated program of its kind. Given the nature of this new legislation that is providing a framework for infrastructure and transport funding moving forward, I think it would be appropriate to include it in the act at this time.
The former government allocated some $70 million in the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. In the 2012 and 2013 budgets the former Labor government provided a further $250 million to extend this program. Total spending on the program became $320 million. It is a very significant program particularly aimed at road safety. When it comes to road safety we know that an extraordinary percentage of fatal accidents involve heavy vehicles. That is a problem for people who dedicate their very hardworking lives to driving on our highways to deliver products to market. It is also a problem for every driver because we all share the road with those heavy vehicles. Already there are 294 projects in total, including some 236 projects that have been completed, along with over 140 new or upgraded rest areas and 46 new or upgraded parking and decoupling bays.
Round 3 project criteria included funding the states and territories under six categories: rest area projects, which were about improving the provision of heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes; parking and decoupling bay projects, which went to providing heavy vehicle parking and decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban and regional communities; and technology trial projects, which included the trial technologies to improve heavy vehicle safety and/or productivity. We know that this has reaped dividends in the past. Then there is the area of 'improving undercarriage'. There are considerable fatalities where literally heavy vehicles go over the top of passenger motor vehicles. This new technology ensures that that does not occur. New technology can also be designed to ensure that notification is given to a heavy vehicle driver who goes out of their lane. New technology can also provide for automated braking if a heavy vehicle gets too close to the vehicle in front of it. That automatic braking system has been advocated by people, including Lindsay Fox and others in the transport industry. This is an area that has seen extraordinary progress in saving lives and is one of the reasons why I think we as a parliament can be proud of the difference we have made in recent years to reduce the fatality rate on our roads. (Extension of time granted)
The fourth area is road enhancement projects. This can enhance the capacity and/or safety of roads, including bridges, to allow access by high-productivity vehicles to more of the road network. This again is a common-sense initiative. You should not have bottlenecks because bridges cannot take the weight of a heavy vehicle and therefore the driver has to, literally, spend many additional hours on the road with the consequential cost to the driver and the consequential cost to those who share the road with that driver, as well as the increased emissions and increased costs at the end of the day to the consumer who has to pay those flow-through costs. So this was a very sensible initiative.
The fifth is demonstration projects to facilitate innovation to improve heavy-vehicle safety and productivity projects. Again, working with the industry itself—to get that feedback and to make sure that the government is responsive to the needs of industry and of those people who work on the frontline in this industry.
The last was particularly important, and came from very specific representations from ALRTA, the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters' Association. It is livestock transport industry projects which improve heavy-vehicle safety and productivity for specific livestock transport operations. The former member for New England was a big champion of this particular area. In terms of the assistance given, when you look at the website you see projects from right around the country—particularly in Queensland, which is not surprising given the nature of the state there—to have improvements which make an enormous difference to safety and to the working lives of those people who work in that industry. For heavy-vehicle safety, I believe this is particularly important.
Of course, it was consistent with our initiative in introducing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. That arose out of the landmark report of the House of Representatives committee supported by, and including, the former member for Hinkler, Paul Neville. He was a big champion of this reform, which essentially introduced Safe Rates and acknowledged that the power in the marketplace between an individual driver and a big company is not even, and that that pressure could lead to practices which cost lives. We know that is the case. No-one could not be moved if they spoke to one of the wives or family of people who have lost their lives because of the pressure that was placed on these people on our roads.
That is why the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was enacted by the former government. I believe that it was an absolutely critical reform. We were given a reminder of it recently by the Four Corners program, which outlined very clearly, in practical terms, why this issue should not be one of ideology and of partisan political debate. This should be something that is above party politics and should be an issue which is supported by all in this chamber—particularly by representatives from regional Australia. It is in regional Australia that most of the incidences involving heavy vehicles which cause fatalities occur.
These are sensible reforms, putting in place a framework which stops the undue exercise of pressure on drivers to drive what are sometimes extraordinary hours have been indicated. In Australia, people driving for more than 24 hours straight should not occur. There needs to be a framework around that. (Extension of time granted)This is critical and we established the Safe Rates Remuneration Tribunal. It commenced operation in July. 2012. The object of the act is to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry. The tribunal's role in this area primarily relates to addressing the relationship between remuneration and safety in the industry by ensuring, amongst other things, that road transport drivers do not have remuneration related incentives to work in an unsafe manner and removing remuneration -related incentives, pressures and practices that contribute to unsafe work practices.
I am disappointed that the coalition government has flagged its intention to eliminate this tribunal even before its first order comes into effect on May 1 of this year. It has commissioned an inquiry into the tribunal before it has had a chance to prove its worth as an additional tool to deliver road safety. It is particularly insulting to the families of hard-working truck drivers to describe this tribunal as 'red tape'. This is a tribunal that is aimed very fairly and squarely at saving lives.
The first four of the items listed in the amendment which I have moved add the Heavy vehicle Safety productivity program to definitions in the act in a manner consistent with the existing programs: Item (1) inserts the heavy vehicle safety productivity program into the act's definition of an eligible funding recipient. Item (2) inserts the program into the act's definition of approved purposes. Item (3) inserts a definition reference to the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program. Item (4) inserts a reference to the project approval instrument for the program. Item (6) inserts a new part 7 to the act that outlines the essential elements of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program in a manner that is consistent with other programs under the act. The provisions relating to approval of projects, provision of funding and conditions that apply to funding are the same as for other projects such as black spots.
I might leave my comments there and give the minister an opportunity to respond to these amendments. I must indicate that I contacted the minister last Friday morning and indicated very clearly that I was prepared to have discussions about the amendments we are moving to this bill today. I believe it is important that these amendments be considered on their merits. They clearly have merit. The same arguments that the minister has put with regard to areas such as the Roads to Recovery Program was of course included in the budget in 2013. We extended the program out through the forward estimates, but it does make a common-sense reform to include it in the act, which is the legislation that we have before us today. Just as that makes sense, it also makes sense to include the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is why we are moving this amendment today.
I have two further points to make. The key clauses to note in the amendments are clause 86C, which prescribes eligible heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects as being projects that reduce accidents by reducing driver fatigue or projects that increase productivity by enhancing capacity on existing roads—those are the current project criteria for the minister to note; and clause 86R, which says that records relating to measuring the outcomes of the investment are required to be kept for five years—which is, again, consistent with the way that, in general, the act applies. For the benefit of the House, amendment (7) is simply a consequential amendment, if you like, relating to renumbering. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (16:01): The government will not be supporting the amendments moved by the honourable member for Grayndler. Let me begin by assuring the House that the government has no intention whatsoever of getting rid of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity program. We recognise that it is a program of value. The heavy vehicle industry pays a road user charge and they expect that money would be spent on projects of benefit to the road transport industry. We will continue to do that.
There is no need to include these amendments or the references that the shadow minister is talking about in the legislation. He did not do it when he was the minister. These clauses were not in the act. It is not as though we are removing them; he is asking that they be added. If it were necessary to have them in the act, he would have been in the position to do it when the Labor Party was in government,. The reality is that this program is covered by the existing provisions in the act. It is covered by the legislation that was in place under the previous government and it has not changed under this government.
We certainly are committed to delivering this particular program and we will deliver it with enthusiasm and genuine commitment. However, these amendments increase duplication and increase the administrative burden on funding recipients for no real value. The proposed part 7A for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project duplicates existing provisions in the act. The heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects are currently approved under either part 3 or part 6 of the act, depending on whether they are on or off the National Land Transport Network. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 is combining the existing part 3 and part 6 into a new part 3 to remove the duplication from the act. The proposed part 7A would undo this if the opposition's amendments were to be accepted. The proposed part 7A also increases the record-keeping burden on funding recipients by requiring them to maintain records for heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects for five years under the proposed clause 84R. Funding recipients are not required to keep these records under the existing part 3 and part 6 or the new part 3. So this kind of record keeping was not required when Labor was in government.
We are a government that believes in less regulation and less red tape. These amendments add substantial burden to those who are receiving these grants. For that reason, it does not really seem to me to make much sense. Labor had the capacity to put this kind of prescription in the legislation when they were in office, they did not choose to do so. To do it now adds administrative burden to those who receive the grants and duplicates existing sections in the act. For those reasons, we do not support the amendments.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (16:05): I very strongly support the amendments to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 that are being proposed here. I take the point that the minister has made. We would argue that this program has been of such success that it is important to really give it an elevated status. It has already been said that the road user charges that are paid by the trucking industry are very considerable. We think that giving this particular aspect of the program—which was part of the nation-building funding, more generally—an elevated status and enshrining it within the legislation would be an act of very considerable support to the industry. Many of these aspects—many of the projects that have been covered and many of the sub-programs that are part of that program—are very much geared towards boosting the productivity of the industry and improving the safety, which in turn increases the productivity of the industry. I add my voice to the plea for the minister to retain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I take considerable pride in the fact that Western Australia was the first jurisdiction to introduce this legislation, because we were conscious not only of the potential impact on the lives and health of many of the truck drivers, who were reliant on heavy doses of pharmaceutical assistance to enable them to deal with the hours they were being required to drive, but also of the impacts that it would have had for the rest of the community, including impacts on their safety. It is simply unacceptable for us to continue refusing to do anything about the problem given that we know the nature of this problem so well.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is not listening because I wanted to ask him if he had read the reports going right back to the Howard era, including the Burning the midnight oil report promoted by Senator Ron Boswell. The reports highlight that we need to get the whole supply chain engaged in this issue. The whole supply chain must take responsibility and an important part of that is safe sustainable rates. The Western Australian conservative government did not seek to overturn the legislation when they came into government, so I would seek a response from the minister as to why he will not give this legislation a chance to prove its efficacy.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (16:08): I am very pleased to support the amendments proposed by the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 and I endorse the comments made by my colleague, the member for Perth, who has just spoken. I speak on this issue from two bases. Firstly, there is a strong awareness of the issues in my own electorate, given that the road connections to the port of Kembla—shared between my electorate and the electorate of the member for Throsby—are so heavily utilised by trucks servicing the port. Secondly, I am well aware that, if you live in a rural or regional community, the roads are critically important—they are a part of the lifeblood of Australia. I am sure the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is also aware that in regional and rural communities roads are essential for community members to be able to participate in life. Families use roads to take kids to school, people drive to visit others, and drivers, whether they are small carriers or driving for large trucking companies, earn their living by travelling on roads. As I say, roads are a critically important part of the lifeblood of rural and regional Australia and keeping people safe on these roads has to be one of the most significant things that we undertake when legislating in this space.
The proposed amendment, to have the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program specifically identified under a separate funding stream in the act, is both reasonable and sensible. In March 2013, under the previous government's Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, joint funding of just over $8 million was provided—approximately $4 million from Commonwealth and $4 million from the New South Wales state government—to upgrade the existing truck stop on Mount Ousley Road. Mount Ousley Road is the key feeder road into and out of Port Kembla and it has, as you could well imagine, a lot of trucks travelling on it. I am very pleased that my state colleagues, in government, expanded the use of the port by the addition of the movement of cars, but that has, of course, resulted in a lot more usage of the road. The announcement of the $8 million investment in the truck stop upgrade along with the announcement of a $1.4 million trial of Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems Initiative along the Hume Highway to Port Kembla, where again $700,000 was contributed by the state government, were very important for the wellbeing and safety of road users. These are some very good initiatives in the promotion of the wellbeing and safety of road users.
I support this particular amendment from a background of having worked with the shadow minister when he was Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I also acted as deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure under, as the shadow minister indicated in his earlier speech, Mr Paul Neville, the then chair and member for Hinkler. It was my very first experience of committee work and I have to say that he taught me very well about the good work a committee could do. The committee presented a report titled Thegreat freight task: is Australia's transport network up to the challenge?which indicated that a significant increase in the movement of freight around our nation would require serious infrastructure investment into the future. The report noted that we also needed to put the related regulations and protections in place. The committee travelled around the country to look at ports, roads and rail networks to determine what tasks needed to be undertaken.
I was very pleased eventually, on our coming to government, to become the chair of the committee. Following a reference from the shadow minister, we had an inquiry into the need for a Safe Rates Remuneration Tribunal. We received, as the shadow minister indicated, very moving evidence not only from truck drivers and from the union representing them, the TWU, but also from families that had suffered grief and loss as a result of tragic road accidents involving heavy vehicles. The committee recommended to the minister that establishing the Safe Rates Remuneration Tribunal would be the most appropriate action to take, given of course that there was cross-portfolio coverage. The view of the infrastructure and transport committee was that it was the appropriate body to put in place and, as the shadow minister said, it should now be given the opportunity to prove its value and prove what it can contribute to all of us in the community. Finally, as the Minister for Road safety, I had the opportunity to see, firsthand, how important these sorts of initiatives are. I think the amendment is very reasonable. It is a sensible amendment and it embeds something that I think we should all be proud to support.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:14): I rise to speak on the proposed amendments put forward by the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. I know he has been a passionate advocate of the development of transport and infrastructure. I am lucky to have served under two 'infrastructure' Prime Minister's, who earned their title by actually investing in infrastructure, not just claiming their support for it as part of a political process. In no small amount that was due to the efforts of the member for Grayndler.
Obviously, having an inner city seat, my electorate is very different to yours, Deputy Speaker Scott. An inner city seat is often where transport congestion is at its worst. That is why it is so important that the best possible analysis is done of the productivity benefits of the economic infrastructure that the government signs off on. I have seen that in my electorate at the Kessels and Mains roads intersection, a road that I can now drive through, which used to have traffic snarls for two, three or four changes of lights. Now, the east-west traffic can go straight through, under a grade separation. I am passionate about making sure that infrastructure in my electorate is completed and upgraded, but I know that it must go through Infrastructure Australia, the organisation that will make the best decisions about it.
The amendments put forward by the member for Grayndler make sure that, rather than having the possibility that the minister may be influenced by political decisions, the responsibility is in the hands of those who will make the evaluation based on the best cost-benefit for the nation. That is why these amendments should be supported by those opposite.
I also wish to speak about the safe rates legislation. My electorate is a hub for business and transport. It has a big trucking industry, with the busiest truck-stop in Australia in terms of fuel sold. My electorate has the interstate rail line, it has coal trains coming from the west and it has the start of the train line which takes goods all the way up to Cairns. The freeway is one of my electorate's boundaries, and the Kessels and Mains intersection is the second-busiest intersection in Queensland. That is why I am proud to have had that intersection sorted out by the member for Grayndler through his commitment to infrastructure investment. As I said, he does not just claim the title; he actually puts dollars there.
Back in 2003, under the Howard government, the percentage of GDP invested in infrastructure bottomed out at around one per cent. It is great to see that, under the fair dinkum infrastructure prime ministers, Rudd and Gillard, we were able to increase that and achieve some great outcomes—outcomes that are good for productivity. I think Prime Minister Howard was on the record as saying that he did not believe in investing in public transport in urban areas, not realising the great productivity stranglehold that that creates. I was at an event in my electorate with the then minister for transport, the member for Grayndler, where he was able to sign off on some signal changes that had been advocated 108 years before, at the time of Federation. It took Labor to actually get it together, to bang the heads together, and say, 'We need to do this in the nation's interest,' rather than just letting those individual transport ministers look after their fiefdoms.
When politics comes into play, you do not get the best possible outcomes. I have seen that in my electorate. The transport minister in Queensland, the Hon. Scott Emerson, is the only state MP with an electorate that spans both sides of the Brisbane River. I wrote to him saying: 'I note that there are two rail crossing improvements being funded by the Queensland government, but both of them are on the north side of the river,' one at Robinson Road at Geebung and one at Telegraph Road at Bracken Ridge.' I said, 'How about fixing up the Coopers Plains rail crossing?' something that the former member for Moreton promised to improve back in March 1996. Minister Emerson wrote back and said: 'Go and talk to the federal transport minister and let him sort it out. It is not our problem.' It seems like the LNP in Brisbane will only look after infrastructure on the north side of the river, so I will be talking to the transport minister about that later.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:19): I too rise in support of the amendments before the House. I am one of those MPs with a rural electorate. I know too well, not only from media reports but also from conversations that I have had in my community, how important road safety is. With thousands of country roads, streets, highways, intersections, rail crossings—and the list continues—I am sad to say that road safety continues to be one of those hot-button issues in my electorate.
I am relieved that this bill will continue the Roads to Recovery and Black Spots funding, programs that in recent years have seen over $10.5 million spent in my electorate to fund much-needed upgrades. In a meeting with the Macedon Ranges CEO, he said: 'The funding we have received from Roads to Recovery has fixed 10 years worth of roads that we would be able to fix on our normal rate base. Thank you.'
Black Spots is directly targeted at identified roads where there have been more accidents than normal. Those are pretty dark words to be linked to a federal government program. Small councils have small rates bases, yet large regional areas and a number of roads. They struggle to maintain these roads, which is why it is so important that federal governments partner with local governments to tackle these issues. What is disappointing is that the government has not agreed to enshrine in the legislation the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. It is also disappointing that the government has not agreed to consult with Infrastructure Australia before approving projects, which would provide greater transparency around decision-making when it comes to large infrastructure projects. Under the former Labor government, funding did flow in my electorate in relation to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. In fact, last year alone just under $400,000 was delivered to central Victoria to improve a number of trouble spots. This funding not only improved the safety of those working in livestock saleyards, and upgraded other facilities; it also increased and improved productivity.
Any program that improves the safety of workers and roads can only be a good thing. That is why I believe it is important that this program also be enshrined in the bill and the legislation before us. These amendments will help protect rural truck drivers and their families.
Heavy vehicle legislation is also being addressed through the new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which was again established by the former Labor government and commenced operations in July 2012. The object of this act is to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry—again, going back to my initial point that road safety and improving the safety of workers on roads can only be a good thing. To describe the tribunal as red tape proves the government prefers ideology over trying to find ways to save lives on our roads.
I think the second amendment is a vital one in ensuring Infrastructure Australia is consulted before the approval of any major projects to ensure that there is greater transparency around decision making. Many stakeholders are calling for this in my own area. In central Victoria, a debate rages about the East West tunnel and whether the $8 billion being spent on that tunnel is at the expense of safety in our country and regional areas. Instead of allocating these funds to our regional highways, arterial roads and local roads that are falling apart and riddled with dangerous cracks and potholes, this money has been allocated to what has been described as a dud tunnel. Not only will this tunnel not solve the congestion problem of Melbourne's east-west, it is also an expensive dud. The tunnel will lead traffic straight into a traffic jam. Very few people travel from east to west in the inner city. They travel from the east to the city or they travel from the west to the city; rarely do they go across the city, which is why it is an expensive dud. The spending of the $8 billion on the tunnel will not benefit motorists in my electorate. That money could be spent on fixing vital infrastructure and bottlenecks in regional Victoria.
It is a waste of money that nobody wants, and it is one that the federal government should not be committing to—but they are. The Prime Minister said in The Age last September that he does not need to see the East West Link business case. The journalist went on to report that the government will hand over $1.5 billion to fund this tunnel without seeing the full business case. If there was one example that demonstrated that there is a need for greater transparency, it is this one. (Time expired)
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (16:24): I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Grayndler and, in particular, to speak to some extent with respect to those designed to strengthen governance around project selection by elevating the role of Infrastructure Australia in advising on project benefits. The amendments make the logical link between Infrastructure Australia's role to provide advice on infrastructure and national priorities and the minister's role to decide how to allocate scarce Commonwealth funds. For the projects that are funded, the minister will be required to publish details of the project and include Infrastructure Australia's evaluation and cost-benefit outcome. The requirement to publish delivers transparency to the sector and the community at large around the merits of allocating taxpayer funds to projects.
Overall, the strengthened governance is precisely what all major stakeholders in the infrastructure sector have called for in the current Productivity Commission inquiry into public infrastructure and in the recent Infrastructure Australia Senate inquiry, including the BCA, Infrastructure Partnerships and the Infrastructure Coordinator himself. But it is not only from those expert sources that we see a call for increased transparency and better governance. I have in my possession a copy of the coalition's policy from the last election to deliver the infrastructure for the 21st century. It has a photo on the front of a series of smiling faces, in which the minister is included.
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr GRIFFIN: You did not make it, Member for Stirling. Maybe next time. It makes a number of key points which relate to this very area and the whole point of the amendments the member for Grayndler has moved. I quote from it:
But we will do much more than just deliver infrastructure. We will ensure better infrastructure planning, more rigorous and transparent assessments of taxpayer-funded projects, and develop a much firmer and clearer infrastructure plan for Australia’s future.
I go on, as, no doubt, did the coalition:
The Coalition will strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia, to create a more transparent, accountable and effective adviser on infrastructure projects and policies.
And again, in a dot point:
Require all Commonwealth infrastructure expenditure exceeding $100 million to be subject to analysis by Infrastructure Australia to test cost-effectiveness and financial viability.
And again:
Regularly publish cost-benefit analyses for all projects being considered for Commonwealth support or investment.
As you can see, the purpose and intent of this amendment is about codifying what the coalition was saying that they were supposed to be all about in their policy. So what we are trying to do here is assist the government in ensuring that they meet their election commitments; to create a situation where what they said they would do will actually be enshrined in legislation to ensure that is in fact what happens.
Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we—probably me more than you—are concerned that this government needs to be understood as to what it really intends to do and needs to be held to account. When it uses terms like transparency and accountability, we want to ensure that that is there for all to see and is not something that can be changed at the whims of a new minister down the track or altered just because they feel like it after the next Commission of Audit, or the next budget, or the next review or the next change of Prime Minister. What we want is a situation where these sorts of conditions are not only clearly understood, but also enshrined in legislation to ensure that those who follow will indeed act according to these high ideals.
I would urge the government to reconsider their position. I would urge the minister to perhaps revisit the document that he had his picture on the front of, look to the points in that document that were stated quite clearly, and see and understand that the amendments that are being proposed here today will ensure that he keeps the very promise that he made in this document—not only now but in the future, as part of what will be a sensible regime for the future management of infrastructure projects within this country.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:28): I join with the member for Bruce in urging the minister to reconsider support for these practical amendments. It is important to look at what these amendments will do. It is pretty simple. They will enshrine the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program to make sure that the program exists. It does not exist because, as the opposition, we cannot allocate funding and seek an appropriation. All we can do is put in place a framework in which funding is possible.
Have a look at round 3 of the program. I want to outline just some of the projects and put on record to the House why this is important. Firstly, in New South Wales there is a Smart Rest Area Cooperative Intelligent Transport System trial on the Newell Highway—$1.06 million from the Commonwealth, matched by the state. This project is aimed at exploring the use of cooperative intelligent transport systems for drivers of heavy vehicles so that they can locate where the rest stops are as they are driving, looking at the potential integration of this technology. This is an important change and an example of an innovative use of this program, jointly with the New South Wales government. Similarly, there is the New South Wales Mount Ousley Road Rest Area project. People in Sydney or Wollongong who drive on those routes would know the circumstances around that particular area of Mount Ousley Road. This is a $4.045 million project from the Commonwealth, matched by the state—more than $8 million for a heavy vehicle rest stop on Mount Ousley Road, Mount Keira, northbound. It is aimed at increasing capacity from four to between 10 and 15 B-double bays. It will also significantly improve the amenity on the site—a big difference—ensuring that co-investment is there.
Again on the Newell Highway, there is the $1.65 million Gillenbah rest area upgrade—again, a vital project. Just one project from the livestock area of the program that was added is Dubbo Regional Livestock Markets—a project that will upgrade the access roads, loading ramps and security safety lighting and improve line marking and signage. There will be $1.14 million from the Commonwealth, matched by $1.68 million from Dubbo Council—a good example of cooperation between the Commonwealth and Dubbo Council for projects that I am sure were on Dubbo Council's books for a long time but that they could not afford to do by themselves. Together this program has ensured that it will occur, creating jobs in that local regional community and improving both safety and outcomes.
In Victoria, there is the Hume Highway Truck Rest Area Vacancy Information System, aimed at developing and installing a rest area vacancy information system on the southbound carriageway of the Hume between Wodonga and Benalla. For this, more than $2 million came from the Commonwealth and more than $2 million from the state of Victoria—again, an innovative use of this program and one that will make a substantial difference.
A Queensland project is the Warrego Highway, at Cemetery Road east of Chinchilla—supplementing existing project works, including paving and sealing of ingress and egress and providing greater amenity on that site. For this, $310,000 came from each area. And then there is sealing the hard surface of all access circuit roads and the truck-park area at the Blackall saleyards, with $1.2 million from the Commonwealth and $300,000 from the state. (Extension of time granted) In Western Australia—and this is a topic of some conversation at the moment in this chamber—there is the expansion of the Wubin road train assembly area on the Great Northern Highway just 25 kilometres north of Perth, with $1.5 million from both the Commonwealth and the Western Australian government. Further afield, in between Port Hedland and Newman on the Great Northern Highway, with $950,000 from both the Commonwealth and the state government, is a project to construct two layover bays to permit oversized mass vehicles to leave the highway during daylight hours for rest. It is very important that these projects are able to be funded.
In South Australia, almost $2 million is being provided by both the Commonwealth and the South Australian government, leading to the planning, design and construction of seven new or upgraded rest areas on the Sturt, Stuart and Eyre highways. In Tasmania, examples of the use of the program for bridge upgrades are the Esk Main Road Bridge, with $1.25 million from each level of government, and the Railton Main Road Bridge, with $1.14 million from each level of government. And here in the ACT a program of almost $1 million, shared equally between the ACT government and the national government, proposes to strengthen the Barry Drive Bridge to allow larger vehicles to use it.
All up, if you look at just round 3, that is $45 million from the Commonwealth, matched by $36 million from the private sector and local government but also primarily from state governments that have made applications to this program. These are examples of why the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program should be continued. If the government is committed to its continuation, there is no reason that it should not be included in this act, as other programs are included under the act. The nation building program was of course where it was funded from, and the nation building act was legislation that was passed by this parliament prior to this particular program being included. I would ask the minister to tell us why he believes Roads to Recovery should be included in the act in a way that does not ensure the program, as of a particular period, in this case 30 June 2014, does not require further rollover, but will be permanently included in the act. I would ask why this program is any different. It would certainly be up to the government of the day to determine at what level the funding would be included for the program. It would also be up to the government of the day to determine specific aspects of the program, such as the former government did when we received the representations from the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association.
I am at a loss. If the government does not have an intention to remove future funding rounds of this program, either in this budget or some budget in the future, why does it not support this amendment being included in the act? I would ask that question to the minister opposite. (Extension of time granted) I asked the minister opposite a question, and this is the appropriate place to ask it.
Mr Truss: If you close the debate I will get up and respond.
Mr ALBANESE: The minister opposite says that if we close the debate he will get up and respond. That is not the way that Consideration In Detail works. Once no-one has the call, the debate concludes and the minister does not have to respond. I am certain you would be aware of that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware of that, because otherwise he is not conducting this debate in the constructive way in which the opposition has approached it.
We have moved amendments in good faith. We have put forward the argument for why they should be included. I have asked the minister to outline what the differences are between this program and the Roads to Recovery program, and if he wants to leave my view on the record unchallenged. My view is that the only reason these amendments would not gain the support of the government is because they intend to get rid of these particular aspects of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, on the basis that they could be included in the commission of cuts, which they have refused to let the Australian people see.
It is up to the responsible minister to at least respond to the argument. If he disagrees, then he should put on the record why he disagrees with these very reasonable amendments. The only argument I have heard from the minister, which was in his first contribution, concerned the keeping of records. Well, they are the existing provisions. If the Commonwealth is going to argue for existing programs not to require a process of reconciliation and reporting back of records when money is handed over to state governments, then so be it. I do not call that red tape. I call that looking after taxpayers funds in an appropriate way, as recommended by numerous National Audit Office reports. There is no change recommended to the record keeping, from existing practice, of the amendments. In the drafting of the amendments the opposition had due regard to the existing program, and that is the basis for how we have moved these amendments before the House today.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (16:42): I have not intervened during the debate. I have allowed members to speak way off the subject on matters not related to the amendments, even though that was contrary to the standing orders. I have allowed people to make their contributions. We have heard discussions about Safe Rates, which are not mentioned anywhere in this legislation, nor in the amendments. The debate on the committee stages is supposed to be about what is in the amendments. I have allowed that to go on.
I have allowed the member for Bruce to speak on the wrong amendments, I hope he is not going to pop up again and say the same thing when we get to the next set of amendments. In regard to the assurance the opposition shadow minister has sought that we will retain the Heavy Vehicle Safely and Productivity Program, I gave that assurance in my first response to the shadow minister. It was an absolute statement that it was my intention we would retain this program. We value it. I do not criticise the contributions of the many members opposite who outlined the merits of particular projects. I am sure they all had merit. Whether they were the ones I would have chosen in the same situation, I am not commenting on. What I am commenting on is the fact that this has been a good program. It is one that is supported by the heavy vehicle industry, and it is supported by the government.
It existed under the previous government without this legislation. Under the previous government there was no requirement to report and keep records for five years, so why is it suddenly necessary under the current government? The reality we need to recognise is that there is a bipartisan commitment to this program. It is our intention to keep it. It has not had specific legislation around it in the past, and neither does the Bridges Renewal Program that this government is proposing to introduce. Quite a number of the other areas which are funded under the land transport program do not have specific chapters about them and nor do they have specific legislation to underpin them, yet they continue to be funded. We intend to continue this funding and I think it is time we voted on the amendments.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (16:44): We acknowledge that this was not included in the legislation previously, but, as the member for Grayndler explained, that was because this program was introduced after that legislation had already been in existence. Whilst it is absolutely true that we can continue to fund this program without it being enshrined specifically in the legislation, the point that we are seeking to make is that this program has now become one of such significance and such importance to the heavy vehicle industry that we believe it is timely that it be brought into the act in a more formal way.
This has become a much more significant program, a program on which $70 million was spent in the first two rounds and to which, in the subsequent rounds, $250 million was added to extend the program. In the overall scheme of things, we can see that this program has become an increasingly significant program that has very significant support from the heavy vehicle industry and, indeed, local and state governments because it has gone to the heart of improving productivity and safety.
Our case here is that this is now a significant and important program. If it is intended to be retained in its current form, the program is of a scale that warrants it being specifically included in the legislation. The auditing provisions that surround such a scheme and expenditure should be similar to those of existing programs.
Mr Truss: We are quite happy for that to happen, and it will happen. The auditing provisions are not being changed.
Ms MacTIERNAN: But none of the auditing provisions that are included in the amendments are any different from the auditing provisions in the—
Mr Truss: They are. What is there now is about keeping crash records for the Black Spot Program; it has nothing to do with this program.
Ms MacTIERNAN: That is certainly not the advice that we are getting. No doubt the member for Grayndler will be able to clarify that point. I think the rationale is that this is now a very significant program. This is no longer simply an incidental program; it has been developed to a point where it now represents very significant expenditure. Given its importance and what it has been able to deliver, we would like to see this particular program entrenched. We believe that there is a very strong argument for entrenching it in the legislation to ensure that it receives continuous funding at whatever level. The government may, from time to time, determine to fund it, but we do not believe it is a program that should be accorded a lesser status. As we are amending the legislation now, this seems to be an ideal time to update the legislation to include this program, which has now been in operation for a number of years.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:49): I want to support the comments of my colleague, the member for Perth, and take up the issues raised by the minister. We, in good faith, provided the amendments to the government in advance of moving them so that they could have the opportunity to receive advice from the department, and we know they need that advice. We have attempted to do something very simple—that is, create provisions in the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 which are very similar to the provisions which exist and are being included in the Roads to Recovery program.
The question that the minister has not addressed adequately is: why is it good enough for the Roads to Recovery program but not the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program? I agree that it is an excellent program with bipartisan support that enabled it to be extended in the 2013 budget across the forward estimates to make sure that local government would have certainty in the future. The benefit of the Roads to Recovery program is that it is untied so that local government—the elected local officials in a community—can determine the priorities according to local feedback. They are in the best position to do so, as opposed to the bureaucracy in Canberra.
With the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, we did not have people sitting in the offices in Civic saying, 'I think a heavy vehicle rest area on the Newell Highway is best positioned at place X.' What we did was consult with the sector and the industry itself and ask for that process to occur. We went to state government and local government. We did so in a way which, I believe, produced an extraordinarily successful range of projects—rest areas, parking decoupling bay projects, technology trial projects, road enhancement projects, demonstration projects and livestock transport industry projects. We did this in a way which, because we requested some matching funding from the state government, the local government or the private sector, ensured that there was real economic stimulus in those local communities. If you look at where the projects took place and what electorates it took place in, over 90 per cent of the funding presided over by me as minister for infrastructure under this program went to coalition-held seats across the program.
Mr Truss interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Those opposite are still having their obsession with the former member for New England—he was someone who would stand up for his seat and someone who has my ongoing respect. Here we are today moving a program of which 90 per cent went into coalition seats because funding was determined on its merit. When we have road safety issues, it is merit that matters, which is why for the Pacific Highway, the member for Cowper who was here before, we have either completed or funded—the former government—the entire duplication of the Pacific Highway throughout his electorate. That is the whole lot, including of course the Kempsey Bypass, which is the longest road bridge in Australia.
That is the commitment that I brought to the program of making sure that we made a difference to the national interest, not just to political interest. The next amendment is a real test for the government over whether they will continue that role, but I commend these amendments to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [16:58]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Kelly)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:06): I move amendment opposition (5) as circulated in my name:
(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (after line 21), after section 4A, insert:
4B Consultation with Infrastructure Australia
(1) Before approving the provision of Commonwealth funding for a Black Spot Project, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, Investment Project or Transport Development and Innovation Project, the Minister must:
(a) have regard to:
(i) Infrastructure Priority Lists and Infrastructure Plans developed by Infrastructure Australia under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to the extent relevant to the project; and
(ii) any other advice provided by Infrastructure Australia that relates to the project; and
(b) if capital expenditure on the project is $100 million or more—require Infrastructure Australia to give the Minister an evaluation of the project so that the Minister can decide whether to approve the project.
(2) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of a project mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:
(a) contain a cost benefit analysis of the project; and
(b) specify the priority that Infrastructure Australia would give the project in relation to priorities specified in its current Infrastructure Plan; and
(c) set out any other matter that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the project.
4C Cost benefit analyses to be made public
If Commonwealth funding is provided for a Black Spot Project, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, Investment Project or Transport Development and Innovation Project, the Minister must ensure that the following information about the project is made available on the Department's website:
(a) a description of the project;
(b) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed;
(c) Infrastructure Australia's views on the project, including any evaluation provided to the Minister under section 4B.
This amendment requires the minister to require an evaluation by Infrastructure Australia prior to approving funds for land transport projects valued at over $100 million. Such an evaluation needs to include a cost benefit analysis, Infrastructure Australia's view on project priority and any other views that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant. If the project is funded by the government, the evaluation must be published on the department's website. For other projects under $100 million, the minister must have regard to Infrastructure Australia's advice and views on priorities. This is an amendment that absolutely should be supported by this parliament.
We on this side of the chamber are very proud that we created Infrastructure Australia in 2008. We did so to break the nexus between the political cycle, which by definition is very short term, and the infrastructure investment cycle, which requires a longer term perspective. It is also consistent with the amendments that we will move to the Infrastructure Australia Bill, which was gagged in this House but is before the Senate. Submissions to that inquiry—from organisations like Business Council of Australia, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, and many other submissions, including, it must be said, the evidence given by the Infrastructure Coordinator—indicated how important it was that the government's attempt to gag Infrastructure Australia from providing a transparent process when it comes to infrastructure investment occurs—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: The errand boy opposite said, 'Wrong bell'. What he needs to understand—and if he were listening, he would understand—is that the amendments we have moved here, which I believe will certainly be supported in the Senate, if not in this chamber, are consistent with the amendments that will be moved to the Infrastructure Australia Bill.
What is more, they are consistent with coalition policy. The coalition went to the election saying that all projects of $100 million or more should be assessed by Infrastructure Australia before they are funded. So we are putting it into the legislation. If only for that reason, the opposition is moving this amendment with the expectation that the government will support it, because it is absolutely consistent with their policy.
This amendment provides for the further entrenchment of Infrastructure Australia. It bolts together Infrastructure Australia's role as an independent adviser to government and major government infrastructure programs. If you are going to put before the House this Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, which purports to take infrastructure development forward, without putting in the legislation a role for Infrastructure Australia, then it clearly is inadequate; it clearly is inconsistent with the rhetoric of those we see opposite. This amendment should be supported by this entire House.
The minister, if this amendment is carried, will remain able to make funding decisions as he or she sees fit. We regard that as the role of government. But there will be transparency around cost-benefit of funded projects and how funded projects stack up against national priorities. In government of course Labor provided funding for all 15 of the projects which Infrastructure Australia determined were ready to proceed on their priority list. This strengthened governance and transparency is precisely what all major stakeholders in the infrastructure sector have called for in not just the legislative inquiry but also in the Productivity Commission inquiry into public infrastructure. (Time expired)
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (17:11): The coalition will not be supporting this amendment. The proposed section 4B requires the minister to have regard to infrastructure priority lists, infrastructure plans and any project-specific advice from Infrastructure Australia before approving 'a black spot project, heavy vehicle safety and productivity project, investment project or transport development and innovation project'. If capital expenditure on a project is $100 million or more, Infrastructure Australia is required to give the minister an evaluation of the project, including a cost-benefit analysis.
So the proposed section 4B would duplicate the $100 million requirement provided for under the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. So my advice to the opposition is: if you want that $100 million requirement, as we do, then simply vote for our Infrastructure Australia amendments. Just vote for the bill. That will deliver the $100 million obligation. In fact, you actually have to vote for our infrastructure bill to make this amendment work, because it requires the minister to have regard for an infrastructure plan in making assessments about these particular projects. There are no infrastructure plans now. They are created under our amendments to the IA Act. So, in reality the shadow minister must vote for our amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act to even be able to deliver on the amendments he is talking about now.
We have made it clear that we are determined to make Infrastructure Australia more open and transparent than it is today. Instead of having an Infrastructure Coordinator who answers to the minister and takes direction from the minister, we want to have a new CEO who will be answerable to the board. Currently the board is simply an advisory committee.
We think it makes a lot of sense; if you believe in having an independent IA, the CEO should be answerable to the board not to the minister. The board should take the action that it needs to take to ensure that things are done in an independent, open and transparent way. We will deliver an Infrastructure Australia that will be genuinely independent in a way that it is not now. I would encourage members opposite not to just defend past history or past legacy but to look to what we need for the future, in other words, an Infrastructure Australia that is able to act independently and give independent advice to the government.
I would also make another important point in relation to these amendments. Black Spot, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity and Transport Development and Innovation projects are all small value and small-scale projects and they are unlikely to be considered by Infrastructure Australia in developing infrastructure priority lists and infrastructure plans. Infrastructure Australia was created to consider nationally significant projects, not Black Spot projects, which have a maximum funding amount of $2 million. Even though we are resourcing Infrastructure Australia better than has been the case—
Mr Albanese: No, you're not.
Mr TRUSS: Well, we are maintaining the funding—and, in that regard, it will have more resources to do its job. But there is no way in the world it is going to be able to consider every project of $2 million and give a detailed cost-benefit analysis as would be required under this amendment. The reality is that the matters of substance in the proposed amendment are best addressed by passing the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill will deliver on an independent analysis of important projects. It will deal with the $100 million threshold requirement that is proposed in this amendment. I think that the best way to ensure that these matters can be dealt with quickly and constructively is for the opposition in the Senate to agree to pass the bill, and then we will have the kind of scrutiny that is required.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:16): We have just seen an example of why infrastructure policy development under this government is so erratic. The Deputy Prime Minister said in one sentence: 'We are resourcing Infrastructure Australia more; we are maintaining funding; that will mean it has more money.' That is the sort of logic that we see from those opposite. They come up with rhetoric about Infrastructure Australia while they are trashing its independence. It is not just that I say that; the Business Council of Australia say that in their submission, where they recommend changes to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill.
The minister does not understand. He is walking out of this important debate and refusing to participate, giving the job to his errand boy, the member for Mayo. It is up to the senior minister to actually participate in this debate. He said that there was no infrastructure plan and somehow that was an initiative of the new government. The fact is this: if he had been paying any attention at all—if he had woken up for just a few minutes in his time in opposition—he would know that Infrastructure Australia produced annual reports that had plans going forward into the future and have a website with a pipeline of projects. Now, while he is in his office, the minister should ring Lyn O'Connell, the deputy secretary of the infrastructure department, and ask about the website with the pipeline of all projects of $50 million or more that are in the planning stage, that are under construction or that are completed into the future.
That is the sort of pipeline that was asked for by the business community. That is the sort of pipeline that has seen competition come into the infrastructure sector and has lowered costs. That is the sort of pipeline that has seen companies like Ghella, from Italy, come in and participate in the Legacy Way project—which came in under budget by hundreds of millions of dollars. It is the sort of pipeline that saw Bouygues, a French construction company, along with Lend Lease, successfully get the tender for the M1 to M2 project. That is the project that they had a press conference about last week and pretended it was new even though it was funded in the 2013 budget and the intergovernmental agreement was signed on 21 June 2013.
The fact is that these infrastructure plans are produced by Infrastructure Australia right now. The provisions in this amendment which would allow for cost-benefit analysis for all projects above $100 million would also allow for due consideration to be given if Infrastructure Australia have advice on lesser projects—and from time to time they do. For example, Infrastructure Australia gave advice about a very small project in Chullora. It was about a particular bottleneck for the freight industry, which had a BCR through the roof, and which, for a matter of millions of dollars—not hundreds of millions of dollars—would produce an outstanding return to national productivity. Infrastructure Australia gave that advice and we as a government took that advice.
That is why these provisions are there. These provisions are sensible provisions with regard to Infrastructure Australia. They should be supported by those opposite. Those opposite said that they would ensure more rigorous and transparent assessments of taxpayer funded projects. 'We will require all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis,' they said. That is what they needed to do on the East West Link in Victoria. That is what they need to do on projects that they intend to fund. They need to do what they said they would do, so that they get the best productivity outcome.
Today in The Daily Telegraph we hear about a cabinet subcommittee, as if that is somehow a substitute for proper policymaking and proper advice from Infrastructure Australia. Everywhere you look, the government are undermining the independence of Infrastructure Australia. That is why we have moved this amendment that is before the House.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (17:21): A couple of points need to be addressed to reinforce what the Deputy Prime Minister so eloquently put in his contribution moments ago. We are far from attacking the independence of Infrastructure Australia—in fact, we are enshrining it in law, and if the member opposite would instruct his colleagues in the Senate to pass it we would get it going straight away.
As to projects such as the East West Link, we absolutely will go through, with the Victorian government, a cost-benefit analysis—absolutely.
Mr Albanese: When?
Mr BRIGGS: Well—if you would hear me out, Member for Grayndler—at the moment, the Victorian government, like the New South Wales government and the Queensland government, refuses to cooperate with Infrastructure Australia. The trust has been completely broached by—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: This is the thing we hear from the member for Grayndler. I do not know how many minutes, now, of the House's time we have spent listening to the complete lack of understanding from the member for Grayndler that, on 7 September last year, the Australian people voted for a different direction. In saying that, they said: 'We support the proposal—
Mr Albanese: We are entitled to hold you to account.
Mr BRIGGS: You are entitled to hold us to account, but you are not entitled to rewrite history. If the infrastructure system is in such terrific nick right now, why is it that the PC's report says that we are wasting at least a billion dollars a year that we need or ought not to? A billion dollars a year! A billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money is being wasted because of the system we inherited from the member for Grayndler.
So the system we inherited is not in perfect condition and we are setting about fixing it. This bill, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, has nothing to do with the gripes the member for Grayndler is trying to raise; they are all in the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013, which he should pass in the Senate to help us start to fix the problems he left us that we now have to try and fix. But he is buddying up with his mate there, the Greens' member for Melbourne, to try and stop any progress on making sure that we get the best value for taxpayers' money, that we get transparency in the system, and that we stop wasting taxpayers' money.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:24): I am pleased to hear the assistant minister saying that he wants to increase transparency, because, despite everything the assistant minister just said, it is my recollection that—and I stand to be corrected on this—the Prime Minister actually said he had seen the business case for the East West Link. If that is the case, the government sure ought to be in a position to table it now, and not come into this chamber and give some answer that apparently Infrastructure Australia is not being cooperative; that is simply not the case.
I spent a long time in this chamber in the last parliament listening to the member for Wentworth, then the shadow minister for communications, now the Minister for Communications, and he prosecuted a case very vigorously against the NBN and against spending on the NBN. I and the Greens are supporters of the NBN, and it was clear that the then opposition, now the government, was going to do everything they possibly could to wreck the NBN, and they ran a number of arguments, about where fibre should go to et cetera.
One of the arguments, though, that did strike a chord with me—and, perhaps, had they not been so clearly out to wreck the whole thing, might have got some support—was that they came in here, time after time, and said, 'We should not proceed with the NBN and with spending significant amounts of money on it because we have not done a cost-benefit analysis.' In fact, from memory, it was not just that they said that rhetorically—and, again, I would stand to be corrected, but I think that the opposition, now the government, came in here and moved amendments to legislation saying that certain bills should not pass until a cost-benefit analysis has been done on the NBN. The arguments were, simply put, that if you are going to spend money on significant pieces of infrastructure, there ought to be a cost-benefit analysis and it ought to be publicly released.
Prior to the election, I held out some faint hope, which has clearly been misplaced, that that commitment to cost-benefit analysis, when you are spending on infrastructure, might carry through once the government was elected. But what we saw during the campaign period was that, despite the fact that there is no business case that stacks up for the East West Link, the now Prime Minister was quite prepared to come out and say, 'I will rip $1½ billion out of the aid budget to put it into the East West Link.' What we then find is that, despite repeated requests to table the business case, the government fights that tooth and nail. Then, when we take the matter to Senate estimates, we find that the only business case or summary of a business case that has been provided to Infrastructure Australia for the East West Link says that, if you apply the same methodology that most other people do, for every dollar the Australian taxpayer tips into the East West Link, you are only going to get 80c back. It is a loss maker, according to the evidence given by the head of Infrastructure Australia, unless you fudge the figures and include all sorts of other additional benefits—benefits that are nebulous, because the government will not tell us what they are but just says, 'Trust us.' When it comes to the NBN, apparently you need a cost-benefit analysis. But, when it comes to tipping a couple of billion dollars into a road project that every analysis that has been made publicly available tells you does not stack up, apparently it is a set of different rules.
If the assistant minister genuinely believes what he just told the House—that this government is committed to increasing transparency when it comes to spending billions on infrastructure—then he should table the business case for the East West Link. Infrastructure Australia clearly wants to say more about it and is being held back. So table it. Let us have some faith that you actually believe what you say about the commitment to increase transparency, because I would have to say that that has not been a hallmark of this government in other respects.
In the absence of the minister being prepared to do that, that is why it is important that this amendment is passed, because it is clear that the government will rip billions from aid projects to spend on infrastructure projects, without a cost-benefit analysis. So I ask the minister at the table in this debate: is he prepared to table the cost-benefit analysis for the East West Link?
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (17:29): I have nothing further to add.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:29): The comments that the minister has made are simply incorrect. It could well be that he is not aware of the functioning of Infrastructure Australia and the role that it plays. But the fact is that Infrastructure Australia has been able to examine projects of significant value across the nation and has produced regular reports and regular accountability to the Australian public through that transparent process. What the minister has not stated is that the legislation which is before the Senate that is linked to the amendments that we are moving and considering now to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 in fact diminish the independence of Infrastructure Australia, and they do so in a number of ways. Firstly, they remove the ability of Infrastructure Australia to publish information. That becomes a decision made by the minister. Secondly, and most remarkably, they allow for certain classes of infrastructure to not be examined if that is directed by the minister.
Quite clearly, this is a government that have said it will not fund public transport projects. They have said that they will, as they put it, 'stick to their knitting' and just fund road projects. The problem with that is that it undermines the whole basis of Infrastructure Australia, that you need to look at integrated transport strategies and the way that the cities fit together and the way that transport infrastructure fits with community based infrastructure and with employment. That is why the opposition was so disturbed that on the first day that those opposite were sworn in as ministers they abolished the Major Cities Unit. We are one of the most urbanised countries on the planet and the priority of those opposite was to sack the Major Cities Unit upon their coming to office and then to declare that they would not fund any urban public transport projects. In order to defend that, they say, 'Oh well, we won't fund any urban public transport projects but that will mean state governments will be able to because we will be funding road projects.'
The difficulty is that all of the announcements that they have made are re-announcements. According to those opposite, it is like that declaration post French Revolution of 1792 which was declared to the year one. They think year one was September last year, that everything that went beforehand does not count. We have seen numerous examples of that by those opposite. Just today we saw the latest example of that whereby those opposite, including the minister at the table, put out this press release, 'Funds flow to reduce Kwinana Freeway congestion'—a good announcement, but the only problem is that it was announced on 5 August 2013 between me and the WA minister, 'Extra funding for Kwinana Freeway and Great Eastern Highway'. You can tell that the department had something to do with both of the releases because, remarkably, they are very similar in terms of the rhetoric. Today—
Mr Nikolic: Except one is funded.
Mr ALBANESE: The nong opposite has no idea. If that is the case, nothing has changed, and breaking news for those opposite: the government have not yet had a budget. So they announced today projects that—
Mr Nikolic: All those big, extravagant promises were never funded.
Mr ALBANESE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to call this bloke to order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The member for Grayndler has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: This announcement by Jamie Briggs as the assistant minister was an absolute cracker—joint funding of $31 million to fund the $62 million widening. (Extension of time granted) It was funded through savings in existing projects between the Australian government and the Western Australian government. It was agreed by me and the then WA Treasurer, Troy Buswell. In terms of the funding, $31 million from both levels of government—a $62 million project, very significant indeed.
They announced it today but it is underway. We see it continually from those opposite—that they announce projects and pretend that they are somehow new. We have seen in question time over last week and a bit those opposite talking about the Gateway WA project. If you had just arrived, like the member for Bass, who has just arrived here, you might not quite know where Gateway WA is as a project. And there is no criticism there; there is no reason he would be an expert. There are lots of oncers who come and go in this place and they make a contribution while they are here. In terms of the Gateway WA project, you would think that this had been launched last week. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday visited the construction site that is in its second year. But, at the same time as the minister has pretended that this is new, on 13 November 2013 he announced, 'New Ramp at Abernethy Road Now Open'. In a joint release with various backbench members from the coalition, Minister Truss said:
The first section of the $1 billion Gateway WA project—the Abernethy Road and Tonkin Highway interchange—is now complete with the new $15.4 million on-ramp now open for traffic
He went on about how vital it was, that 6,000 vehicles a day would use it. He said:
The ramp reduces travel time by about seven minutes, and saves 3.7 kilometres over existing routes. It is great news for the 22,000 vehicles travelling this section of Abernethy Road.
Indeed, it is. But I have news for those opposite and it is news that people in Perth in Western Australia know, that the new government that was sworn in sometime in September did not get this project funded, built and opened by the beginning of November because construction began more than a year ago on these projects. Indeed, at the end of the release from the minister, he said:
The Australian government has committed $686.4 million—
to the Gateway WA project. And indeed we did! But those opposite pretend that somehow that funding was not real. We heard it again today in question time, when the minister attempted to say that this funding was not there. But he visited the construction project yesterday, and I have news for those opposite who might be new to understanding how a project works. You have to have all of the funding allocated, be it from federal, state or local government or the private sector, in order to sign the contract, in this case with the Gateway WA alliance, to proceed—for the project to start. That is how it works.
Mr Nikolic: What about the mining tax funding?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order!
Mr ALBANESE: You have from those opposite complete ignorance. I was at an event yesterday where a senior infrastructure player—not a supporter of mine politically, it must be said—said, 'Has anyone explained to the new government how an infrastructure project gets funding; how it works?' It is so embarrassing for them to say that projects which are underway somehow do not have funding, because that is the basis of a contract. If it is not there, then the fact is the project cannot proceed. Everyone in the private sector knows that.
Mr Nikolic: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek an intervention.
Mr ALBANESE: Throw him out. He should be thrown out.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The intervention is not agreed to.
Mr ALBANESE: (Extension of time granted) The fact is that, every time those opposite make the sorts of statements that they have made about Gateway WA and about a host of other projects, they show how embarrassing their lack of knowledge of infrastructure projects is. And they have done it right around the country. The minister opposite went and visited part of the upgrade—Gateway Upgrade North—and, yet, those opposite would pretend that that funding was not there and that, somehow, it had not happened.
They are happy to go to the openings. Last Friday, of course, many of the federal members who will benefit from the Hunter Expressway did not get an invitation. Those opposite could not squeeze Labor members in. There were more Tories in the Hunter Valley last Friday than you have seen in the Hunter region in history. It was quite remarkable. They were all there for the opening of a project that was promised, funded and built by the federal Labor government as part of the economic stimulus plan—and they had voted against that. They voted against the economic stimulus plan that contained $1.45 billion of the $1.7 billion for the project.
The reason why we believe that you need proper cost-benefit analysis for the land transport program comes back to a proper analysis of benefit. That might be road or it might be rail. Take Melbourne, for example: the M80 project—a very good project—received $788 million from the federal government and is making a big difference to productivity. Also making a significant difference is the largest ever Commonwealth investment in a single public transport project in Australia's history—the $3.225 billion regional rail link. One of the reasons why you have a high BCR for the project is the uplift factor along the route of the train line. If you go to the new stations that have been built, what you see is significant residential development and commercial development specifically around the new stations. You also see significant benefit because of what it does by separating freight and passenger rail going into Melbourne. It is of significant benefit for Melbourne but also for Geelong, for Ballarat and for Bendigo. The current Prime Minister did not seem to know that that even existed when made his 3AW declaration that the Commonwealth government which he would lead would not fund any urban public transport project because that was not what Commonwealth governments do.
The fact is that Commonwealth governments were doing that and they were doing it to significant value, whether it be the Perth City Link project opened and funded, of course, in partnership with the state government, making a huge difference to urban amenity around Perth; the Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension in Adelaide; the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project on the Gold Coast; or, of course, the Moreton Bay rail link, which is now under construction. That rail link was first promised in 1895, but it took a federal Labor government to make sure that that proceeded to construction. All of these projects are examples of assessments being made and then funding being delivered. It is important that, in the area of infrastructure, Infrastructure Australia gets a say. What we are proposing with this amendment is nothing more and nothing less than the existing coalition policy. It is what they said they would do—that there would be cost-benefit analysis for projects of value above $100 million. I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (17:44): Half of this may be cleared up if we say out loud to the member for Grayndler that he did not do all bad things when he was in government. Some things that he did were good things. Now that we have cleared that up, we can say that with certain projects the member for Grayndler, as a federal minister, allocated taxpayers' money which has achieved good outcomes. I am very happy to put that on the record. If that makes the member for Grayndler a little bit happier, I am glad that may help clear up this debate, finally getting us to an actual vote and moving the legislation through. The debate we are having at the moment has nothing to do with the proposed amendment. It is about getting on the record what the member for Grayndler thinks was his record. We will happily say some of the things the member for Grayndler did were good things and some of the things he announced with taxpayers' money prior to the election on 7 September continue today. Of course they do. But it was not the member for Grayndler's money. It was not the Labor Party's money. It was taxpayers' money, and the new government, which was rightfully voted in on 7 September, has an obligation to tell taxpayers what is happening with its money. That is why we have put in place more transparency.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: We are not announcing that these things are new. The member for Grayndler is struggling to get past what happened. I accept that. But we will say that some things he did were good. We refer to the Productivity Commission and say some of the system we inherited was bad. So there we go: a little from column A, a little from column B.
To one of the points the member for Melbourne raised—and I will not say I agree with him on this—about the NBN: if you look at the draft Productivity Commission report, he is right to point to the NBN, because it is the pin-up boy example of how not to do infrastructure. You cannot blame the member for Grayndler for that, because he inherited it at the end of his reign as a minister but was not responsible for its process in the first place.
Mr Albanese: A golden era!
Mr BRIGGS: The golden era as comms minister! Compared to the predecessor, probably.
It is the draft Productivity Commission report's view that the NBN is the example of how not to do infrastructure in Australia, so the member for Melbourne is right to point to that project.
Proposed opposition amendment 4(b) refers to infrastructure plans developed under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. IA are not required to develop plans under the act. The coalition's amendment to the IA Act will require IA to produce those plans. The government's amendment to the IA Act will require IA to develop specific plans of nationally significant infrastructure projects over a 15-year period—working with the states in a collaborative manner is, as I said, not happening at the moment—rather than having IA agree simply to election commitments. Under the current legislation IA do not have to publish anything. So our point that you have to pass the Infrastructure Australia Act is absolutely valid.
This amendment we do not agree with. We have had a reasonable debate on it, and I think it is time for us to move to a vote.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (17:47): We had some interesting statements made today by the minister in the chamber. These were statements he made in an interview this morning. He said that government is going to make decisions based on evidence in the infrastructure area, but quite clearly what we are going to do is limit the amount of evidence that is available on which to make a decision. Firstly—and the minister has contested this—we argue that the amendments that have been made to Infrastructure Australia do in fact reduce the autonomy and transparency of the work that is done by Infrastructure Australia. It will give much more control to the government over the release of the reports that are done by Infrastructure Australia, so the evidence that is there is not going to be available for us to judge what the government is doing. Secondly, of course, it enables the minister to direct or exclude certain classes of infrastructure from being examined.
We are going to make decisions on the basis of the evidence, but we are actually going to control what the evidence is. We will then say, 'Now we've got the evidence supporting our decisions, but that's precisely because we have prevented Infrastructure Australia looking at the entire picture.' As we know, they will be precluded from making assessments on very important urban rail projects. So we will have this situation where Infrastructure Australia are going to be examining road funding and doing cost-benefit analyses on those road projects but will be legislatively proscribed from taking into account what might in fact be a far more efficient and effective way of dealing with those urban mobility problems. It is all very well to say we are going to make our decisions based on the evidence; when you are doctoring, limiting and controlling that evidence, that then becomes a pretty hollow statement.
I am very interested in the cabinet subcommittee that has been set up today. I wonder to what extent this is an attempt to bring this back into the fold of the Liberal Party? Having the National Party in charge of the infrastructure portfolio may indeed cause problems. I would be interested to know from the assisting minister: if the Prime Minister is unable to chair the meetings, whose job would it be? Would it be your job? Would you be delegated to chair those meetings?
Mr Briggs: It certainly won't be you.
Ms MacTIERNAN: It certainly will not be me, because I am not part of the government.
Mr Briggs: And you won't be.
Ms MacTiernan: Oh, I won't be. So you are going to predict what the Australian people are going to do in the fullness of time. You argued very eloquently a few minutes ago. You put it very passionately that we should accept the fact that the people in all their wisdom have made the decision to have you in government, but apparently you are born to rule! Once in, these gentlemen—and they are gentlemen—are never going to—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The member for Perth has the call.
Ms MacTIERNAN: Thank you.
Mr Briggs: Sorry.
Ms MacTIERNAN: Thank you for that. It is nice of you to acknowledge that.
We know that the statements made today by the assistant minister are that they need the Labor Party to get out of the way of these reforms to Infrastructure Australia to enable them to do anything. (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:52): I rise, based on Minister Briggs' previous interventions, to ask a question during this debate. No doubt the minister is now the one responsible for getting this legislation through and wants to get it through both houses. I think everyone understands what the numbers are in the Senate. I ask the minister this question to assist us and my party on formulating our position on this. The minister just said that there is an 'obligation to tell taxpayers what is happening with their money'. I think I have that quote right. My question—to assist us in formulating how we might vote on this amendment or other amendments or deal with it when it comes to the Senate—is: will the minister commit to tabling the cost-benefit analysis for the East West Link project before the contracts are signed?
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (17:53): I refer back to the contribution I made earlier in respect of the East West Link project. A couple of things that I do want to correct now, having been given the opportunity, are: firstly, with respect to the claim that Labor MPs were not invited to the Hunter Expressway opening, I am very well advised that the member for Hunter was there and was invited, and so was Mr Clayton Barr from the New South Wales opposition. They were invited by the relevant members, which is, I think, exactly the same procedure that the former minister would have followed. Secondly, to correct the contributions made by the member for Perth—just so she understands—Infrastructure Australia do not actually do the cost-benefit analysis; we rely on the states to do it. That is how it worked under the former minister and that is how I intend to operate. We are not going to have an agency which is second-guessing; of course it is the states which build, own and operate the roads. With respect to the claims which continue to be made not so clearly by the minister but by the member for Perth, who clearly said that we are precluding consideration of Infrastructure Australia on public transport projects, that is just simply not true. There are two different things here. We fully expect, as we have said numerous times, that Infrastructure Australia will include consideration of public transport projects because the states will say that they are important and are a part of their plans—the states do the planning. If public transport projects are an important part of the states' planning, which you would expect in major cities, they would be part of the 15-year infrastructure plan. But we have said we believe the best place for the federal government's contribution, in respect of infrastructure, is lifting productive capacity in our economy. In that sense we are focused on contributing to roads and to freight rail. That was a clear commitment at the election.
The member for Grayndler is right to disagree; he is entitled to disagree and he will put his perspective at the next election, just as he put it at the last election. We are very clear on one thing—we will do as we say and act in accordance with the commitments we made to the Australian people prior to the election. The opposition is entitled to make the claim that they would fund public transport projects, but they should not continue to create a furphy, which is that we will preclude Infrastructure Australia from considering public transport projects; we will not. It is of course part of a 15-year plan that we expect. We want transparency; we want Infrastructure Australia to build that plan so that we have the infrastructure of the 21st century delivering a stronger economy. These of course are interesting matters but they are matters which relate to another bill. We should get back to the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler so we can move on with the business of the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:56): I want to take issue with a number of the comments from Assistant Minister Briggs who has identified correctly that there is a link between the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 and Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. What there is not—where he was incorrect, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he did not know—is the provision in this bill, which is before the Senate, to allow for a mandated examination by Infrastructure Australia of projects of value above $100 million. It is not in the legislation. I will tell you what is in the legislation—and is being opposed by the Business Council of Australia, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and others; it is the ability to direct Infrastructure Australia to exclude certain classes of infrastructure. That is in the bill which is before the other place.
In terms of productive capacity and the minister's response, he stated that he was concerned with an increase in productivity and the government is right to do so. The disagreement between the government and opposition is essentially that you cannot do that if you exclude some classes of infrastructure if you say that you will not fund some classes. I will give just a couple of examples: one is the direct relation between public transport and the road network. By investing in public transport, in the Geelong-Ballarat-Bendigo region in terms of the regional rail link project, it takes pressure off the road network between those regional cities and the city of Melbourne. I am certainly not opposed to road funding. We doubled the roads budget when we were in government and funded projects like the Geelong ring-road and other projects there including the Princes Highway in the Geelong region, as well as the Sydney Road improvements in Bendigo and improvements in Ballarat. But there is a relation between the two and there is also a relation between passenger and freight transport. For example, the project Southern Sydney Freight Line—opened by me as the minister some time ago, although, I am sure, in spite of that, at some stage the current government will claim credit for it—and the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program, which will create a particular grade separation at Strathfield, the centre of the Sydney rail network, will improve the passenger round network by separating it.
Before we funded the upgrade the Southern Sydney Freight Line had a period of curfew at Port Botany. Because the passenger line, quite rightly, got priority, freight could not be moved during peak hours in the morning and the afternoon. Closer to the minister's home is the Goodwood to Torrens rail project. If politics rather than productivity were the driving force behind decisions on infrastructure, I do not believe the Goodwood to Torrens rail project in Adelaide would have got funding, nor would the Majura Parkway in the ACT and the outskirts of New South Wales. Those projects were funded because of the high BCR that they had. The Hunter Expressway is very similar because of the amount of freight on it. So if you have a view of the world that says we fund passenger roads and freight rail and do not look at the integrated system, you will get distorted outcomes. I ask the minister to point to where in the bill—and perhaps he is correct—it says $100 million projects will all be evaluated before the government funds them. It is little wonder that the member for Melbourne is asking about the tabling of the cost-benefit analysis for the east-west road project. (Time expired)
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (18:01): Without debating another bill that is now before the Senate and has just had a Senate committee report on it, which I must say—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: You shut it down last time. I must say in relation to the Senate inquiry into the IA bill the Infrastructure Coordinator appointed by the former minister said he recommends the committee support giving the IA the new function to produce infrastructure plans. That was the recommendation from Mr Deegan, which earlier you were arguing—
Mr Albanese: Because it already exists!
Mr BRIGGS: No, they do not exist already. I explained when you were out of the parliament that they were not.
Mr Albanese: We tabled it in the parliament!
Mr BRIGGS: I suspect we are not going to come to an agreement. Under proposed section 5A(2) of the IA bill IA must not evaluate a proposal that is to give effect to the $100 million promise. This is also in the second reading speech and is made clear in the department's submission—
Mr Albanese: Where is it?
Mr BRIGGS: It is in the second reading speech, so it makes it clear that is the commitment.
Mr Albanese: It is not here.
Mr BRIGGS: That is in the second reading speech. And the $100 million will be a determination made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Truss, under proposed section 5A(3). That answers the question.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (18:03): With due respect to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, he full well knows that it is not included in the legislation—that it is determined upon the whim of the government of the day. We know that the last time the coalition came to office they cut $2 billion from the road funding budget in their first budget and they never recovered in terms of road funding.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: The errand boy opposite indicates that he was very young at the time, and I accept that he is not personally responsible.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: But I will point out that the bloke who issues him orders and instructions each day was here. He has been here almost since Federation. He was the transport minister who described the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway as the worst section of road in Australia. It was in his seat and he was the transport minister but it took a Labor government to promise, fund, build and open the new section from Cooroy to Curra. That is typical of what we did.
Those opposite simply seek to politicise decision making. We saw this morning on the front page of the newspaper that they are establishing a subcommittee of cabinet. Why that is an announcement is another thing. We had subcommittees of cabinet as well, but we did not do press releases, as cabinet is supposed to be sensitive and not for publicity. But when you have nothing to say about infrastructure except for re-announcements, you say you are establishing a committee.
The rhetoric of that article indicated that this was about the politicians, not the bureaucracy, making decisions, which is how this fits with the amendment that is before the chamber. That is what the article said: they are taking charge; they are going to make decisions. You can imagine the sorts of decisions that will be made by those opposite. Tonsley Park is a public transport project in the assistant minister's own city, yet when he talked about it on radio he thought it was a freight project. It is about three kilometres out of his seat. Such an anathema is the very concept of public transport to those opposite.
It comes down to the book Battlelines. Tony Abbott clearly indicates his view that public transport somehow diminishes the rights of the individual and the power that an individual feels in a car. If cities are going to function productively, you need to have effective public transport. That is why the amendment before the chamber seeks to have Infrastructure Australia play its proper role. It is not picked up in this bill—Infrastructure Australia has no role. The other bill before the Senate, which they say covers it off, clearly does not cover it off. Proposed section 5A(2) gives complete power to the minister. It says:
However, Infrastructure Australia must not evaluate a proposal under subsection (1)—
that is, nationally significant infrastructure—
if the proposal is in a class of proposals determined by the Minister.
Complete power to the minister for what Infrastructure Australia does. So you are going to establish a board rather than the Infrastructure Australia council—same thing, different word—and you are going to instruct them. I never, ever instructed Sir Rod Eddington, as Chair of Infrastructure Australia, about what he could, or could not, look at. Infrastructure Australia came up with a range of recommendations, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. But if you are going to have an independent adviser then you should actually respect it. This legislation, just like the IA bill does not do that.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (18:07): There are a couple of extraordinary things about the debate about the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 before the House this evening. The first is that they are actually having a debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall the last piece of infrastructure legislation that was before the House—and these people on the other side of the House. It with their own bill, but they did not have the confidence to have the legislation considered in detail. So confident were they about the subject matter of their legislation that they gagged the debate. They were not willing to have their own legislation considered in detail and there was a very good reason for that. There was much to be ashamed of in that bill—the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. So the first thing that is extraordinary about the debate before the House today is that we are actually considering this bill in detail. A welcome thing that is too.
The second extraordinary thing is the subject matter. I listened with interest to the assistant minister's speech when he was responding to some of the questions before him today. I listened with particular interest when he said that they will honour the commitments they made in the election campaign—they will honour the commitments that they made and the policies they took to the last election. I pricked up my ears when I heard the assistant minister say this. I went to my office, and I grabbed a copy of the coalition's policy—the coalition's policy to deliver infrastructure for the 21st century. This is not a 2011 document or 2010 document—they could be forgiven for forgetting their policy if it was dated back a few years—this was September 2013. And I had not forgotten. I thought I had forgotten—I thought the assistant minister might actually have got it wrong. But there it was. I picked it up, and in black and white I read these words:
The coalition will strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia to create a more transparent, accountable and effective adviser on infrastructure projects and policies. Under a coalition government, Infrastructure Australia will—
amongst other things—
require all Commonwealth infrastructure expenditure exceeding $100 million to be subject to analysis by Infrastructure Australia to test cost effectiveness and financial viability
It goes on to say Infrastructure Australia will:
…regularly publish cost-benefit analyses for all projects being considered for Commonwealth support or investment…
Well there you have it; that was the policy that they took to the 2013 election.
So I have to ask the assistant minister, who stood up not 10 minutes ago and said that the coalition will honour every policy they took to the last election, why is it that at the first opportunity they have to honour that policy by voting in favour of an amendment to their legislation they resist it? They say they will not support it. Is it because they have already given the go-ahead to the East West Link project and the WestConnex project? Two projects, no cost-benefit analysis. Despite the fact, a few months ago, in this very place the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Finance stood at that very dispatch box and said, 'yes' that those projects will have cost-benefit analysis. But no cost-benefit analysis, and no support for the legislation before the House. You have to ask yourself: is this another instance of the government saying one thing before the election and doing exactly the opposite once they get elected?
The second question that I have goes to the issue of the new subcommittee of the cabinet that we were advised of by press release this morning. The question I have is this: is this new subcommittee of cabinet truly designed to fast-track infrastructure projects, or is this new subcommittee of cabinet designed to sidetrack Infrastructure Australia and to sidetrack cost-benefit analysis? That is the question for the assistant minister; that is the question for this parliament. If the government truly wants to honour its commitments, the commitments that it took to the last election in this document here, then they will do away with this bogus subcommittee of cabinet. They will ensure that Infrastructure Australia is able to do the job that it was set up to do—the job that these people opposite promised the people of Australia that Infrastructure Australia would be allowed to do. It would be allowed to provide free and frank advice to government, and the cost-benefit analysis the people of Australia deserve. (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (18:13): The assistant minister does not seem to be that keen to secure the support of the Greens for this Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 so I rise to give them one last opportunity for the third time on this question.
I have heard this assistant minister come into the chamber many, many times, whether it has been in opposition or now in government, and say, 'The only people that you can trust to spend your money are the Liberal Party because we put everything through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis'. There will be no waste under us.' As he just alluded to in a previous contribution in this debate he said, 'It's the same argument that we ran with the NBN.' And what the minister will remember, is that the opposition then said, 'Don't proceed with the NBN until there has been a cost-benefit analysis done and until the results are published.' Given all of that, and given that we are seriously considering this bill—and I presume that the minister wants to get it through the Senate—I will try one last time. Will the minister or the government commit to making public cost-benefit analysis on the East West Link before $1½ billion is spent on before the contracts are signed?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (18:14): I rise to express concern at the report today that not only would the government not have Infrastructure Australia determine priorities, but Tony Abbott is going to determine priorities by taking—to quote the front page of today's newspaper—'personal control' of infrastructure development. It is quite extraordinary that that would occur. One of the issues raised by the article today is the rolling out of infrastructure associated with the potential second airport in Sydney.
For a second airport in Sydney to work, of which I am very clearly on the record as a supporter, it needs road and rail infrastructure. If you are not going to have that funding there, then you will not have the support that is required from people in Western Sydney who regard infrastructure development, quite rightly, as an absolute priority for them. Those on this side of the House would be very supportive of increased infrastructure for Western Sydney, but if you have circumstances whereby the government is ruling out funding for rail infrastructure, which is a necessary component as shown by the planning work that was done by the former government for a second Sydney airport, then you need that infrastructure looked at as a whole. Indeed, that issue is a good example of why you need integrated infrastructure planning. The joint study that was done by the New South Wales and Australian governments had very much an emphasis on land transport infrastructure to support aviation infrastructure. It is the case right around the country. It is the case with ports. It is why Infrastructure Australia should not be hamstrung and it is why there should be an assessment of the cost-benefit analysis by Infrastructure Australia for all projects of $100 million or more.
The final decision should be made by the government. I accept that is the case. I do not take one position when I was in government and another in opposition. I take a consistent view, but my consistent view is that infrastructure development is best when you have independent and transparent advice. This amendment would allow for Infrastructure Australia to play a role in the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, addressing that inadequacy in the legislation. Infrastructure Australia, under the chairmanship of Sir Rod Eddington, has done an outstanding job. The fact that those opposite are pretending that they are strengthening Infrastructure Australia when they are really trying to undermine its independence and integrity shows how far the debate has moved and indeed how successful it has been. When we moved the legislation early in 2008, it was opposed by those opposite, just like they opposed the economic stimulus plan and the nation-building investments that we made.
I commend the amendment to the House. If it is not carried here it will be moved by Labor senators in the other place, because we believe this is absolutely critical. It is consistent with the rhetoric of those opposite. We attempted to get agreement for this amendment, which is why we provided the amendments to the government in advance of this debate and indicated that we were open to discussion. The government rammed through the Infrastructure Australia legislation last year and is putting through this legislation—which makes a significant change—without any proper process and review being attached to it. This legislation is not the comprehensive legislation it could be if the government were prepared to take a bit of a common-sense approach and support the opposition's amendment.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (18:19): In summing up the debate and answering the last couple of points, we hope that the Labor opposition will come to some sense on the amendments that we are moving in the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, and that it will accept that we are making Infrastructure Australia more independent and giving it a strong and transparent voice. That was the point that the member for Grayndler just made. I would have thought that a cabinet subcommittee is something he would have welcomed. He does have a passion for Infrastructure Australia—I acknowledge that. Putting the emphasis of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer on this is something, you would think, the member for Grayndler would welcome deep down inside, because it is about getting the infrastructure delivered. I am sure that at times he had the same frustrations that we have whereby sometimes the states are not as good at delivering as they should be. Having a cabinet subcommittee to push through an agenda which is part of a transparent and independently recommended spend of taxpayers' money to build a stronger economy should be something that is welcomed. That is what the cabinet subcommittee is all about. It is about achieving the outcomes that we seek through our infrastructure investments now and through what we will do in the future. Of course, the East West project is a great project. It is a project which stacks up economically and we will—
Mr Albanese: How do you know?
Mr BRIGGS: We are very confident. The information that we are talking to the Victorian government about shows that this is a good project. It is a very good project. As I said earlier, there have been issues with the willingness of governments to share information with Infrastructure Australia, there are commercial elements—
Mr Bandt interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: I know the Greens do not necessarily understand commercial elements, but I say to the member for Melbourne: stop the professional protesters trying to get in the way of decent development so that the people of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne can get the infrastructure investment that they need and deserve. I am sure, at some stage, the member for Melbourne will accept that when there is a terrific new piece of infrastructure in Melbourne to get—
Mr Albanese: We will see how you go in the Victorian election.
Mr BRIGGS: The member for Grayndler is right. Ultimately, as he said across the chamber, how people in Victoria vote in the election later this year will be a matter for them. I am sure both the parties at that stage will put those proposals just as they did in September last year. I say to the member for Grayndler: that is a good way to end this debate. Support the mandate that we were given in September last year to build the infrastructure of the 21st century so that we have the strongest possible infrastructure we can have.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
The House divided. [18:27]
(Deputy Speaker—Mr Vasta)
The House divided. [18:35]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Vasta)
Third Reading
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (18:41): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (18:42): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The Green Army program is one of only two programs in the government's environmental agenda that actually seeks to build something. The rest of the agenda—and it is a busy agenda, I will concede that—is essentially about dismantling and destroying environmental protection policy. In my contribution to the debate on this legislation I want to talk about a number of aspects, both environmental aspects and also aspects of the bill so far as they seek to provide young unemployed people with training and employment opportunities.
This program is not a new concept; it has been around in different guises for more than two decades. In 1992, the Keating government introduced the Landcare and Environmental Action Program, or LEAP, which was similar to this in its essence. It provided a training wage or training allowance remuneration to young unemployed Australians, aged between 15 and 20 years, for six months to receive formal training both on and off the job and also work experience undertaking programs with a land care or environmental bent. In 1997, having come to government, the Howard government reformulated that program in some respects and rebadged it and relaunched it as the Green Corps program in 1997-98.
When the Rudd government came to power, in 2007, some changes were made to that program in 2008 and it was relaunched as the Green Jobs Corps, essentially with the same fundamental elements—namely, the targeting of young unemployed Australians in their late teens, and eventually in their early 20s as well, to participate in the program for a period of about six months; providing them with training to some degree or another—and I will come to that in relation to the current program on offer by the new government; and their receiving either an income support payment or a payment connected to the training wage system.
In principle, the opposition does support a program that uses the environment as a field in which to give young unemployed Australians an opportunity to gain work experience and skills that will help them on to the path of either further training and education or, even more quickly, a permanent job. The opposition does, though, have a range of concerns about a number of the details of this program. Some of those concerns have been raised directly with the minister, and I think there has been a constructive approach to trying to provide answers to the questions the opposition has raised, and I thank the minister for that. A number of those questions have also been raised with the relevant department in Senate estimates, and I think it is fair to say that those questions have not yet been fully answered.
For that reason, and in order to allow debate on this bill to fully canvass those concerns—particularly from the opposition's perspective—I will move a second reading amendment to the motion moved by the minister. I move the following amendment, which was circulated earlier today:
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 notes the:
(1) program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation given the poor environmental record of the current Government;
(2) bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation;
(3) Government should clarify why participants do not have employee status even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage;
(4) Government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers;
(5) lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and
(6) importance of supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities.
Mr Feeney: I second the amendment.
Mr BUTLER: In the minister's second reading speech, he described this program as both an environment program and a training program, and I want to deal with the minister's first characterisation of the program first of all. In six short months this government has shown itself to have very scant regard for its responsibilities to protect and to nurture Australia's environment. Indeed, on 4 February 2014 the Independent in the United Kingdom—a pretty centre-of-the-road newspaper, certainly not one of the UK's left-wing newspapers—featured an article entitled Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?The article ran through a litany of decisions made during this government's first six months that seek to either entirely dismantle or start to peg back a range of environmental protections. The Independent posed the question that is on the lips of so many Australians as a result of some of the many decisions made by this government. Six months into the job, this minister's record is almost exclusively one of removing or downgrading environmental protections—some of which, admittedly, were introduced by the previous government, but many of which have been in place in this country for decades and decades.
I will just go through a number of those decisions to illustrate my point. Firstly, very early on the government decided to remove the endangered community listing for the Murray below the Darling River—undoing some work that had been undertaken over several years, including consultations with a range of stakeholders in the area—as a concession to a very serious scare campaign that had been launched. The government also decided to undo the management plans for the world's largest marine reserve system—again, off the back of a mendacious scare campaign that sought to frighten recreational fishers in Queensland, for example, about the impact of reserves that are literally hundreds and hundreds of kilometres offshore.
The government has decided to turn back literally decades of bipartisan support for the Commonwealth's role in protecting matters of national environmental significance, a role that goes back to the Franklin Dam case in the early 1980s—three full decades. This is based on a misconception that the approval decision by the Commonwealth minister—a power that has been in place for many, many years—is a drag on time, resources and energy by proponent companies that are usually seeking to put a development in place. There is a misconception that it is the approval decision—the process of a Commonwealth minister making a decision to approve a development that impacts on matters of national environmental significance—that is actually the drain on a proponent's time, energy and resources. But anyone who has had anything to do with this process knows that it is the assessment process—not the approval decision per se by the Commonwealth minister—that takes the time, energy and resources from proponents.
The Labor party has made it clear for a significant period of time that we see great merit in streamlining and removing duplication from assessment processes that are undertaken in these cases by the Commonwealth at one level and by relevant state governments at the other. Examples include moving from a position of proponents having to undertake two environmental impact studies to having a single EIS or moving from a position of having to undertake two public consultation processes to having a single public consultation process on agreed terms of reference. These are the things that would significantly reduce the time, energy and resources involved in getting some of these developments up in an environmentally sustainable way.
It is not a position that we support, though, to hand over environmental approval powers that have been in the Commonwealth's hands for matters of national environmental significance to a range of state premiers. That is not a party political point. That is a point I make also in relation to state Labor governments taking on these powers.
Even before the approval powers have been handed over, which we understand is intended to take place in the second half of the 2014 calendar year, this government is already backing away from their responsibilities under federal environmental protection laws. I would particularly point to the exemption granted to the Barnett government by the Minister for the Environment for the shark cull in Western Australia. It was an extraordinary application of the national interest exception provision in the EPBC Act, which is targeted at security and defence matters—not matters of political convenience for a particular state government.
This shark cull has been an absolute debacle, as so many experts said it would be when it was first proposed, in a very politically cynical way, by the Premier of Western Australia. From a whole range of different political perspectives this has been an utter debacle. The target shark, the Great White Shark, has escaped utterly unscathed. More than 100 sharks have been hooked, some of which have been killed and the rest have been maimed—not one of them was a Great White Shark, which was supposed to be the target of this cull. Seventy-five of them were under three metres, which was the target size for the shark cull.
All of these things would have become clear under a proper assessment process. However, even before the approval powers had been handed over by this new government to premiers like Colin Barnett, or Campbell Newman, who is up there in charge of the Great Barrier Reef, this government was already walking away from its statutory obligations to subject ideas like this to proper EPBC assessments and approvals.
This is no more striking example of the responsibility of a national government in this country, Liberal or Labor, than the World Heritage system. Australia is moving into refined company—company that, as far as I can tell, at the moment includes only Oman and Tanzania. They are the only two other countries thus far, in the very long history of the World Heritage system, who have actually applied to de-list World Heritage areas: the 74,000 hectares that were listed last year by the World Heritage committee of UNESCO. They are unpicking the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement, which had been worked on for so long by environment groups, by the forestry industry, representing employers and businesses in the Tasmanian forestry industry, and, also, by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, representing forestry workers.
This really is an extraordinary development by this government, which is turning its back on so many decades of bipartisan support and respect for the World Heritage system, apparently based on some photographs taken one weekend by Senator Colbeck. To walk away from this is the most striking example of this government's utter disregard for its responsibilities under federal environmental laws.
We also see no apparent action, none that we have been able to gauge, around the long-running campaign of environmental groups and most traditional owner groups in Cape York about preparing a possible case for the World Heritage listing of that area, as well.
This government is not only uninterested in discharging its own obligations to protect Australia's pristine and vulnerable environment, but it also wants to tie the hands of local communities to take action themselves to protect their local environment. I refer particularly to the extraordinary decision by the government in its early days, through the Attorney-General's portfolio, I think, to strip the Environmental Defenders Offices of any Commonwealth funding whatsoever. To highlight the extraordinary nature of this decision, this is a funding arrangement that endured right through the term of the Howard government. There was a recognition by the Howard government, who in many cases was no friend of civil society, that local community groups who wanted to take action to protect their own environment, or to at least argue the case for protecting their local environment—win, draw or lose—would be able to go to an environmental defenders office and have their day in court. Such is the mean nature of this government in relation to environmental protection that they have taken this decision—no matter that the Howard government respected these funding arrangements right through their 11 ½ years in office. Along with their decision to remove funding from a range of other legal service obligations, including aboriginal legal services, they have decided to entirely defund the Environmental Defenders Office.
Their most telling and most glaring action, without any scintilla of a doubt, is their decision to reverse action on climate change. I have had a number of opportunities to talk about the government's series of bills to reverse action on climate change, and I do not propose to labour the point here. But what we have seen since the last debate on the various climate change bills is the government starting to walk away from commitments that were very clearly and definitively made by them in opposition. This includes commitments given only one or two weeks before the election that they would maintain the bipartisan position on the Renewable Energy Target that has now been in place for four elections. It was a position that was stated as clearly and definitively as could possibly be the case by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Simon Birmingham, at a Clean Energy conference. Yet we still see the government unable to resist walking away from something that makes so much economic and environmental sense.
This minister had a long-standing ambition to hold the environment portfolio. I think that is a genuine and heartfelt ambition he holds, but he is trapped in a government that has no commitment to protecting Australia's environment and no commitment to respect the science and the evidence that goes behind so many of those decisions.
The second reading speech the minister gave listed a number of projects that are intended to be covered by this program, presumably after a proper tender process. Announcements on most of the projects were made by the then opposition while campaigning in marginal seats during the election campaign. Some I am familiar with—for example, the Cumberland Conservation Corridor in Western Sydney, which I am sure the member for Parramatta also is familiar with it. It is a corridor whose development was supported by our government over the last six years. Given the track record of this government that I have just tried to summarise in a short time, the opposition have very serious questions of this government's capacity to run a program that delivers any meaningful environmental benefit to local communities.
There are also very serious questions about the entitlements and the protections that this program will give to its young participants. Some of this simply remains unclear. Some of this is not a position where the opposition say that the government have already decided to remove a protection. But after questions directed to the minister and questions directed in Senate estimates, the opposition simply remain unclear about this. The opposition have been able to look through a draft statement of requirements that has been circulated, but there is still no final document. Although the government said that a tender would be released and advertised before the end of March, it is 24 March and that tender still has not been released. So the opposition have not been able to see the final position that will be expected of tender applicants in relation to some of these points.
The opposition are not opposed to the use of the training wage system as a basis for remunerating participants in this program, but we do have some other serious workplace concerns. Our first serious concern is about the lack of a formal training obligation being made on participant organisations. To instance our equivalent to this program, the Green Jobs Corp required organisations to provide participants with at least 130 hours of accredited training—around five hours per week of accredited training to participants over their six months. The draft statement of requirements for this program indicates that that training is merely optional. The opposition take the view that accredited training should be a core element of this program and it must be accredited training. That should be reflected in the tender. We hope that that will be fixed up between the draft statement of requirements and the final tender documents, but we reserve our position on that.
The program should also identify real pathways to work. Where are the jobs going to be? When the government have answered that question, they should be able to work backwards to match the training and the experience that will be provided through this tender process. Again, although this is a program where the government hope for 15,000 participants, a very large number of participants over the next few years, the government still have not provided clear evidence of the pathways to work that young people will get from this.
The opposition are also concerned that young participants in a Commonwealth program will not receive a range of Commonwealth workplace protections. The bill, for example, excludes participants from the Comcare legislation and deems them not to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth in relation to health and safety. It also deems them in a more general way not to be employees under the Fair Work Act. These participants, as I am sure all members appreciate, are aged 17 to 24 years and have been out of the workplace and unemployed for a significant period of time. For many of them, if not most of them, they will be new to a workplace. It is important that they be protected at work. It is important that all workers be protected at work. It is particularly important that vulnerable young workers be protected at work. A range of questions remain for the opposition to receive answers to. If these participants are excluded from Commonwealth responsibility for health and safety, what is the legal protection for health and safety while at work under this program? Where does the legal responsibility lie and under what legislation? What are the compensation and rehabilitation arrangements if participants are injured at work? They will often be working in fairly hazardous environments. What are the other protections that these participants will receive, as all workers are entitled to receive at work—for example, in relation to potential instances of bullying or harassment? As we know through our own experience, this is a particular challenge for young workers.
Finally, there is no provision, as far as we have been able to discern from the statement of requirements, that prevent this program from displacing existing employees, hardworking employees of local councils and a range of private organisations that do this Landcare and environmental work every day, week in and week out. We are very keen to see the final detail, whether it is through the final tender documentation or elsewhere, as to how this government propose to protect the jobs of those hardworking employees who are already employed to do this. In closing, the opposition do not oppose in principle a program such as this. We will not be opposing this bill when it comes to a vote in this House. But I have tried to outline a number of the questions that need further examination and answers to those questions over coming weeks will shape the view that the opposition take to the bill in the Senate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): 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. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (19:06): I am not going to rise in favour of the amendment. I am quite happy to speak in terms of the legislation—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr HUTCHINSON: I rise to speak in favour of the—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to explain, you speak as you would speak on the bill. It is just that the question now is that this amendment be agreed to. It does not change the side of the House from which you speak, and we will enjoy your address.
Mr HUTCHINSON: I will do my very best. I want to refer to the previous speaker's comments about my home state of Tasmania. I was terribly surprised to see him start to lecture Tasmanians after the results of a little less than a fortnight ago, when Tasmanians spoke as clearly as they possibly could have about what they thought about the lack of consultation and the damage that has been done to my state by the Labor-Greens alliance, and supported by the previous federal Labor government. There was no consultation with broader communities, and there was the devaluing of something that all Tasmanians—I will say it plainly here today—are proudly supportive of, and that is our World Heritage estate. We have an outstanding estate in Tasmania. What the previous government, my former state government, which was so swiftly swept into opposition two weeks ago, failed to understand was that it was devaluating that wonderful World Heritage estate. By including in the World Heritage estate valuable working forests that have sustained regional communities for generations—in areas that included quarries and rubbish tips—Tasmanians spoke very clearly.
I would like to tell you a story about a man on the east coast of Tasmania that I became aware of. Many years ago, he was given an opportunity under the Howard government Work for the Dole scheme. The work that he was engaged in was building a stone wall in the seaside village of Swansea on the east coast of Tasmania. I should also mention that at 29 years of age he had never had paid employment, and it was Work for the Dole that gave him an opportunity to participate in a team and explore skills that he did not know he actually had. After that period of time he discovered that he was actually very good at doing the work there and that he enjoyed the opportunity of going home to his family, to his wife and to his children, and saying, 'I did something worthwhile.' To his enduring credit, he was motivated enough after that Work for the Dole program to approach a local farmer and seek formal employment. To the enduring credit of the local farmer, 15 years later that worker is still there. It just goes to show what a fantastic opportunity and what a fantastic experience that program had been. In fact, that worker is living proof of the value of this kind of work training program to both individuals, in this case, but also to the community more broadly. I quote a Spanish philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset:
An 'unemployed' existence is a worse negation of life than death itself.
In the opportunity that this young man was given, he understood the value of having a job. It is not just about money; it is absolutely about self-respect—the individual's self-respect and, also, the respect that came from his family and his children, who saw him contributing to his community.
The Green Army can provide thousands of trainees with skills and experience and enhance their employment prospects while participating in projects that generate real and lasting benefits for the environment but also for their community. I see this, also, as an enormous benefit to my state of Tasmania and the country more broadly. It is a 'no-brainer', in the colloquial. This government's Green Army program has the potential to be one of the most successful in our country's history. It will become Australia's biggest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018 and being capable of delivering 1,500 on-the-ground environmental projects across the country. It is an important and practical initiative, as I will outline. In line with Mr Hunt's portfolio of clean air, clean land, clean water and the protection of heritage, the Green Army falls under the clean land part of that portfolio and the plan we have for the nation's environment.
There is also Landcare reform, with a theme of 'simple, local and long term'. I can say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is music to the ears of the farmers and volunteers that are so committed to Landcare reform in our country. Similarly, there is the project approval simplification via one-stop shops. This is, again, something that has frustrated so many proponents of worthwhile projects around the nation—not least of all in my home state of Tasmania.
Let's be quite clear, in response to the previous speaker: occupation health and safety is critical. In the case of the Green Army, all will be governed by the statutes, the regulations and the by-laws of state and territory regulations that come under the work health and safety acts. Service providers responsible for engaging and managing participants hold primary responsibility for health and safety of Green Army teams whilst undertaking Green Army project activities. I am very pleased that the government will implement a work health and safety audit scheme for the Green Army projects. It will be an audit of service providers and the projects—something that I do not remember occurring for the failed home insulation program that was launched in haste by the previous government. Quite frankly, being lectured by the opposition with regard to occupational health and safety and implementation, when you look at the NBN rollout and at the home insulation program, is hypocrisy of the first order. Naturally, all the appropriate insurances for relevant parties—personal accident and public and product liability insurance—will be put into place, consistent with previous National Green Jobs Corps programs. I would refer the previous speaker to those points.
In my electorate we are looking forward to cleaning up the Rubicon Estuary near Port Sorell. The 1,768 hectares site is widely recognised as one of Tasmania's most beautiful estuaries. The natural, social and economic values of the estuary and the region have made it home to one of the state's fastest growing populations. But its values have been drastically threatened by invasive estuarine weeds, particularly rice grass. A dedicated and effective eradication program is now essential to save the important environmental values of the Rubicon Estuary. When the project was first put forward, it described the 1,768 hectares as being widely recognised as one of Tasmania's most beautiful estuaries. Port Sorell is known also as the 'port of golden beaches'. The natural, social and economic values of the Port Sorell region have made it one of Tasmania's fastest growing populations. However, its values have been devastated, as I say, by estuarine weeds and particularly rice grass. The Narawntapu National Park and the Port Sorell conservation area are particularly threatened by these estuarine weeds, and a dedicated and effective eradication program is now essential to save the high conservation values of the Rubicon Estuary. It needs a substantial financial investment to kick-start a long-term eradication effort.
The Rubicon Estuary program is one of more than 150 projects that have already been committed to Australia-wide and will be delivered in the initial rollout. In addition, Minister Greg Hunt has called for further applications from local councils, community groups and natural resource management organisations to build the programs on the ground in the first 12 months to 250 projects nationally involving about 2½ thousand people. In my electorate of Lyons we will be keen to encourage groups to nominate potential projects.
Raising awareness is indeed critical. Every community, though, knows of issues that need fixing, that need arms and legs on the ground, be that cleaning up waterways, building infrastructure to mitigate against erosion on, for example, a coastal fringe or building a devil island. Green Army funding could finally see the giant Nile River log jam cleared after 16 years. A modest material contribution and people power are required to clear a jam that has taken on a life of its own. Significant unnecessary damage and flooding occurs on a significant portion of local farmer David Talbot's property every time it rains. Innovative projects no doubt will come from all around the country, and I look forward to seeing some of the very excellent projects that no doubt will come from your electorate, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that we can use as examples in the future.
A dedicated Green Army crew could also rehabilitate the Wildwood property on the banks of the Mersey River at Deloraine. The property is owned by the local Rotary Club and is used for public recreation. It contains habitat for nationally threatened fauna such as the spotted-tail quoll, the green and gold frog, the eastern barred bandicoot and the Tasmanian devil. Participants would learn how to work on weed identification and treatment; development of a landscape plan; revegetation of native plants; and construction of tracks, tables, chairs, fencing and other infrastructure. These are practical life skills that will help the participants get real jobs at the conclusion of the project. Tasmanians in my electorate of Lyons can only benefit from the development and rollout of the Green Army into the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia's history.
Just as important as the environmental pluses for rural and regional areas Australia-wide will be the on-job training for young people who take part. Participants will receive a Green Army allowance as well as gaining valuable work skills and potential qualification in various areas of environmental remediation. Up to nine eligible participants and at least one team supervisor will constitute a Green Army team. The team supervisor will be engaged by the external service provider responsible for the program and paid a wage consistent with the gardening and landscaping services award. Just like the example in the Work for the Dole program at Swansea more than 15 years ago, the Green Army will provide opportunities for training for young Tasmanians between 17 and 24 years of age that will take them on to long-term employment opportunities.
Something like this is desperately needed in my home state and particularly in my electorate of Lyons, where youth unemployment is the highest in the country. One in five young people in my state are actively looking for work and unable to find it. According to the latest data, the unemployment rate among young people in some parts of the state, including my electorate of Lyons, is as high as 21 per cent, some of the worst in the country. The beauty of the Green Army training is that it will provide skills and discipline to set young people up for employment for life. Perseverance indeed is something that is a life skill that should be applauded.
I would like to quote Ronald Reagan, the former President of the United States:
We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.
We are a government that are doing what we said we would do. We are delivering on the commitments that we made to the Australian people before the 7 September election. We are stopping the waste. We are going through methodically and delivering programs that will benefit the people of Australia. We are paying back the $667 billion of debt that will be left to my children and possibly their children if we do nothing and the $123 billion of deficits that were left by the previous government. We are rebuilding trust in government and helping all Australians to get ahead. I commend the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 to the House
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (19:20): I am pleased to be contributing to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. This bill seeks to establish a new payment, the Green Army allowance, to pay those people participating in the government's Green Army Programme. It is, of course, a key component of the establishment of the Green Army Programme, but it does not establish the Green Army itself. The Green Army will be governed by agreements between the government and Green Army service providers and, unfortunately, the details of these agreements have not yet been developed, and neither have the tender documents that will outline the details of the Green Army Programme been provided to the opposition, despite our requests for the government to do so. So the details of how this program is actually going to work remain a mystery. Rather than reveal the details, the government is asking us to vote for a payment that will be part of a scheme we still know very little about, so it does make it very difficult to judge the merits of this program. We cannot be sure at this point how it will work.
Let's be honest: at the moment, the government's record on environmental management, whether it is what can only be described as regressive moves on climate change or undoing protections on the world's largest marine reserves, hardly inspires confidence that this program will be a glittering success. Let us not forget this government's position on cattle grazing in the beautiful high country of Victoria and that is just after six months in office.
So we do have some significant concerns about how this program will work. Of course we want to do everything we possibly can to help young people into work and to get ready for work. That being the case, we want this program to be the best it can be. We, like everyone, want to make sure that the Green Army participants will be protected if they are injured, but there is no clarity about what the rules will be. We want to make sure that participants get appropriate training, that they get access to quality support to assist them in the transition to work. We want to know what risks there are in terms of displacement of existing workers. Put simply, we have not received adequate assurances that these matters are being addressed. We are concerned that this bill does not provide sufficient protection for participants in this Green Army scheme.
As I said, in regard to occupational health and safety, it specifically concerns workers compensation and rehabilitation. We believe greater consideration needs to be given to the implications of why participants are not deemed 'employees'. This exemption means that participants are not afforded protection under a range of Commonwealth laws including the Fair Work Act 2009, Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
We are also concerned about the possible risks the bill may pose to the employment opportunities of existing workers. The government really needs to assure Australians that employees will not lose their job because an employer instead prefers a Green Army participant.
We have very considerable concerns about training provisions. I want to focus my attention now on these matters. In previous iterations of this program, training was in fact a compulsory component of the scheme—whether it was the Howard government's Green Army where there was a required program of accredited training, or under Labor's 2009 amendments where the program committed participants to 130 hours of accredited training. This meant the participants in the programs under previous Liberal and Labor governments had real opportunities to build their skills so that they could then take them on to future work.
Yet, under the current scheme, the government has said that, while training is a component of the program, it will be negotiated with each participant and there will be no minimum hours. So we have moved the second reading amendments today, highlighting our concerns about the lack of detail, and we want to make sure these matters are addressed between the time that it takes to get this bill through the House and before it gets to be voted on in the Senate. The reason we all want to see this scheme work is that at the heart of it is something we care very deeply about—getting young people into work. We do know that the very difficult transition from school to work is unfortunately becoming increasingly hard.
These challenges were highlighted in the Council of Australian Government Reform Council's recent report Education in Australia 2012: Five Years of Performance, about which I have spoken in the House before. The chapter I want to particularly refer people to is the one dedicated to students' transition from year 12 into work. The findings are very concerning. The report found that from 2006 to 2011, the proportion of 17- to 24-year-olds who were fully engaged in post-school study, training or work, had fallen by more than one percentage point to 72.7 per cent. We know that more than a quarter of Australians aged between 17 and 24 are not fully participating in work or study after they finish school.
Despite nearly 30 years of decline in the rate of youth unemployment in this country, it is clear that the global financial crisis has had a dramatic impact on young people's employment prospects. It is the case that youth unemployment today in Australia is far too high, sitting at more than 12 per cent, double the overall rate of unemployment. More than one in three unemployed Australians are aged between 15 and 24. Unfortunately, it seems that the problems are becoming rapidly worse.
Just this morning, the Brotherhood of St Laurence released a report which analysed new data on the increase in youth unemployment in particular areas around Australia. This makes for very sobering reading. Their analysis shows that, in at least one area, over the past two years youth unemployment has risen by as much as 88 per cent. In other areas it has grown by similar amounts. It is clear that in some places around the country youth unemployment is becoming increasingly entrenched. The report indicates that, under current trends, youth unemployment could hit 46 per cent in parts of Australia by 2016. This is a serious wake-up call for all of us to say that we must do more to help young people into work or study. The bill will only support young people if the training provisions in the scheme are the best that they can be. It will only be a success if it facilitates a transition to work. What none of us would want to see is for it to develop into a low-paid, low-skilled workforce. I want to emphasise again that that is why the training provisions of this program are so important. The OECD report Learning for Jobs indicates that:
Vocational education and training can play a central role in preparing young people for work, developing the skills of adults and responding to the labour-market needs of the economy.
Australia's changing economy requires a highly skilled workforce. Many of the unskilled jobs that existed even 10 years ago no longer exist. They have been replaced either by new technology or the jobs have been moved overseas
I just want to emphasise how critical it is that the Green Army proposal gets the training provisions right, and it certainly is not at this point. The training must also reflect changing employer needs and build a strong foundation of basic and transferable skills for participants so they have every opportunity to transition from this Green Army scheme into proper employment. That is why we are requesting again of the government that they provide further clarification on the details of the training aspects of this program.
We know that we need stronger investment in skills and training more broadly and a high-quality vocational education and training system, and that is why we so strongly support our TAFE system. Many of us have been very concerned to see the huge cuts, particularly in my home state of Victoria. There has been $1.2 billion ripped out of TAFE in Victoria since the Liberals came to office in 2010. This has resulted in nine per cent fewer students enrolling in TAFE in Victoria during the first three-quarters of 2013. That is such a short-sighted view of the training needs of our country.
We understand how important it is to invest in TAFE and to invest in vocational education and training. We do want to make sure that this bill is improved. As the shadow minister for the environment indicated, we will not oppose the passage of the bill in the House but we do want to see the bill improved before it gets to the Senate. All of the issues that are referred to in the second reading amendment must be attended to, especially the issues around the training needs of young people and making sure that their safety is looked after when they are part of these Green Army programs. Youth unemployment and participation is a critical issue for our country, a critical issue for young people and a critical issue for the economy. We have to do everything in our power to make sure that it does not become a crisis.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (19:32): I also rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Program) Bill 2014—the coalition's landmark legislation to muster a practical grassroots action group that will take on local environment and heritage conservation projects across Australia. It is an exciting concept. It is a plan that underscores the government's commitment to the environment. This concept is well on the way to becoming reality with this legislation, which will clarify social security arrangements for participants receiving the Green Army allowance.
The Green Army will see young Australians aged 17 to 24 gain training and experience in environmental and heritage conservation fields and learn about careers in conservation management. The program will start in July with the rollout of 250 projects and about 2,500 people undertaking on-the-ground environmental activities in the first year. It will grow to become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, with 15,000 participants by 2018. A diverse range of young people are set to be involved, including school leavers, gap year students, graduates and job seekers. Up to nine eligible participants and at least one team supervisor will constitute a Green Army team. There will be six-monthly placements in what, for many young Australians eager to gain work-like experience, activities and training, will serve as an alternative to income support. Through the amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 that are introduced in this bill, a Green Army allowance will be paid to participants who, at the same time, will not be allowed to receive a social security benefit or social security pension. Team supervisors will be paid a wage consistent with the gardening and landscaping services award.
If I may turn to my region, I would like to spend a few minutes outlining the huge benefits in store from approved Green Army projects at Bribie Island and Burpengary Creek. Buckleys Hole Conservation Park sits on 90 hectares of the south-west corner of beautiful Bribie Island, 70 kilometres north of Brisbane, and it is protected under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is also protected under the international Ramsar Convention. The focal point of this high-value, natural precinct is its freshwater wetland—the most important wetland within my electorate of Longman and the Moreton Bay Regional Council. It is, in fact, one of the nation's key wetlands because of the diversity of birdlife that inhabits and visits the park.
Aside from the wetlands, Buckleys Hole includes portions of Pumicestone Passage, one of the eight major flyways for migratory birds—some of which are listed as endangered or vulnerable—coming from the high arctic of Siberia and Alaska to feed during the northern winter. Buckleys Hole is also the site of a major tea-tree forest. That makes it a prime area of study as the reforestation with tea-trees of degraded wetlands is thought to be greatly advantageous in terms of carbon sequestration efforts. The park hosts other vulnerable or endangered species, including the acid frog.
To preserve and maintain an internationally acclaimed wetland is clearly a favourable outcome for the local, state and Australian community. But more than that, urgency is afoot. Currently Buckleys Hole is subjected to great pressure. The Buckleys Hole Green Army project will help secure a vital wetland that has recently come under siege from several angles. It will propagate and plant thousands of trees and shrubs to replace an array of defined pest plants. These trees and shrubs will also stabilise the embankment around the wetland and other areas at risk. Seawater incursions into Buckleys Hole during king tides have in the past severely compromised the embankment. The project will endeavour to upgrade security and surveillance of the car park, a known trouble spot. There have been many complaints about traffic and hooning in the park, as well as litter and the dumping of domestic waste. As well, it is hoped the Buckley's Hole Green Army will be in a position to upgrade explanatory and other signage, steering traffic away from the pedestrians and cyclists who use the roads and tracks to the park.
The Buckleys Hole Green Army workers will receive a substantial environmental education. They will learn about valuable and pest flora and fauna species and the potential devastation from human impacts on a fragile ecosystem. They will gain an appreciation of the value of revegetation as a tool to protect and enhance Australia's environment.
Also on Bribie Island, a Green Army project has been approved to restore and protect degraded sections of the picturesque Woorim Beach. The plan entails removing pest plants, fencing off areas, propagating and planting thousands of trees and shrubs along the foreshore, repairing various beach accesses, upgrading stormwater exits to better protect Moreton Bay and improving public education on dune protection with signage, field days and education.
The planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover along the dunes and foreshore will help the dunes to recover and rebuild. Restoration of the eroded beach will see it fit again for recreational use, while renewal of the fauna habitats will benefit native and migratory birds and endangered loggerhead turtles—erosion has destroyed some loggerhead nesting areas. The work will also reduce the sediment load into Moreton Bay, a major cause of ocean degradation.
Our remaining Green Army project moves west to another special part of the Longman electorate. Burpengary Creek catchment encompasses 7,960 hectares—6.5 per cent of the former Caboolture shire. Two distinctive creeks, Little Burpengary Creek and Burpengary Creek, drain the catchment. The catchments upper sections start in the D'Aguilar Range in the north west of Longman. Burpengary Creek runs down into the prime residential area of Morayfield around the township of Burpengary and spills into southern Deception Bay. Unfortunately, Burpengary Creek is in a perilous state, with erosion exacerbated by flooding. Due to the encroachment of urbanisation, only 6 per cent of natural vegetation is left within the footprint of the greater Caboolture area.
In the heart of the creek catchment, lies a rare, giant 350-year-old fig tree, supporting a mini ecosystem within its branches and demanding protection and preservation. This approved Green Army project involves the removal of lantana and other pest flora from the banks of Burpengary Creek and revegetation of the site with thousands of native trees and shrub plantings propagated at the nursery of the well-known Caboolture Region Environmental Education Centre or CREEC.
Additionally, the project would like to accomplish the building of a boardwalk climbing metres into the tree canopy to give visitors an overview of the creek and divert them from directly impacting and eroding the riverbank. The catchment and adjacent areas reveal an alarming count of threatened species—46 plants and 60 animals. This Green Army project would help these species recover. The plants under threat would be bolstered by the nursery propagation of their species and subsequent replanting. The vulnerable riverbank fauna would then have more protective cover to rebuild their numbers. As well, other animals and birdlife would be attracted back to the region. Rampant weed growth, strangling food, cover and nesting trees has resulted in bird species around the creek plummeting from 123 to 45 over recent years. Formerly, there were 127 butterfly species along Burpengary Creek. Now, the figure is around 40.
Friends of CREEC, a not-for-profit organisation of volunteers operating from the Caboolture Region Environmental Education Centre, have told me from experience that if 10 people work on such a project, they, through family, friends and other contacts educate and influence another 40 people. Those 40, in turn, advance this knowledge through their social and business circles. And it goes on, exponentially. Potentially, thousands of citizens are exposed to the practice of bringing nature and the built environment into some sort of harmony.
This captures perfectly what the coalition's entire Green Army program is intent on achieving. In the next step, the government will shortly be undertaking a tender process for service providers which will oversee the Green Army initiatives through the nation. Once selected, the service providers will engage with the local Green Army teams to develop and manage activities and report regularly on progress. The Green Army will take a leaf from the book of the Howard government's celebrated Green Corps program of 1996.
The Green Corps worked by providing young people participating in environmental and heritage projects with improved career and employment prospects through accredited training and personal development. The Howard government's Green Corps program propagated and planted more than 14 million trees, erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared more than 50,000 weeds and built or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks or boardwalks.
And what did the succeeding Labor government do? As with so many other innovations of the Howard government, Labor ripped the Green Corps program apart, rebadging it in a way that disincentivised participants, disenfranchised local communities and discarded the needs of the environment. By 2012 it was finally terminated. A grown-up government, which commits itself to a cleaner environment through clean air, clean land, clean water and heritage protection, is back in charge.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House and to thank now Minister for the Environment and his parliamentary secretary, Senator Birmingham, for visiting the locations of the Green Army that I have outlined tonight. I think the Minister for the Environment first visited our region in 2010, when I was a candidate. He visited Woorim Beach and he visited CREEC, where the second program will be unfolding. And in the last term of parliament the now environment minister visited the electorate several times, once again to meet with the environment groups that will be participating directly in this program.
Then, of course, in the last election campaign Senator Birmingham, the parliamentary secretary, once again visited CREEC, to meet with the environmental groups involved in the Burpengary project and also to commit the coalition government to delivering these programs. It is a great tragedy for the local environment and my community that we were not fortunate enough to form government in 2010, because perhaps these environmental programs might have been concluded by now. But it is exciting to be sitting on this side of the chamber post the election so that the new coalition government can go about delivering this scheme, to have a real and substantial positive impact for the local environment in my community.
The coalition's Green Army will make a tangible difference to the environment and communities, replenishing and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers and restoring cultural heritage sites. Marshalling 15,000 participants, fostering teamwork, local ownership and community spirit, the Green Army stands to deliver a broad and lasting national legacy. I commend this bill to the House.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (19:45): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms KATE ELLIS: Most grievously, unfortunately.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms KATE ELLIS: On two occasions today, the Minister for Education suggested that I was supportive of $1.2 billion being taken out of school funding under the former Labor government. That is just plain wrong. The state Liberal governments rejected $1.2 billion in school funding. In fact, Labor committed more than $10 billion to school funding over the full six years of the Gonski reforms, ensuring that every Australian school and every Australian student would be better off.
Furthermore, later on in question time today, the Assistant Minister for Education claimed that I had supported a '$300 million hijack of taxpayer funds in pursuit of a union recruitment drive'. This also is just not true. The Early Years Quality Fund was introduced as a short-term measure to increase childcare workers' wages whilst their pay claim was being put to the Fair Work Commission to determine a permanent, across-the-board increase. The Labor government also acted to support this pay claim by setting up a pay equity unit to help research the case. I am very proud that in contrast to those opposite, who seek to cut childcare wages, we have supported it continually and we continue to do so.
Mr Simpkins: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that that went far beyond a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): There is no point of order.
BILLS
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014
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 notes the:
(1) program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation given the poor environmental record of the current Government;
(2) bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation;
(3) Government should clarify why participants do not have employee status even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage;
(4) Government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers;
(5) lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and
(6) importance of supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities."
Mr GILES (Scullin) (19:47): I rise to make a contribution in support of the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I am pleased to have been in the House for the contribution of the member for Longman. I noted with interest that he went through a number of local programs that will be advanced by the Green Army established through this legislation. Certainly, members on this side are supportive of those sorts of initiatives and also of the pathways to meaningful employment that may be generated through programs such as this, but this legislation raises a couple of other significant questions that I wish to draw attention to, firstly, at a broad level, about the relationship between the bill before us and the government's environmental agenda and, secondly, about an issue relating to the status of persons engaged in the Green Army process.
In making my contribution, I think it is important that we do reflect in the first instance on the environmental performance of the government to date. The question I think we need to pose is: do we really have a minister who is for the environment? His performance to date, lamentably, suggests environmental concerns do not have an advocate in this government or, at any rate, an effective one. Members opposite, it should be noted, often speak in this place on questions of the legacy that we might leave to future generations. These contributions relate exclusively to their posturing over debt—a matter for another time. We do not hear any concern for the sort of world our grandchildren will inherit for this most fundamental expression of intergenerational equity.
This is not just about inconsistency. It is a profoundly troubling failure, because across the developed world, only Australia is going backwards in terms of its approach to tackling climate change. I think of the Globe Climate Legislation Study which found Australia to be unique—in a class of its own—as the only nation taking negative legislative action on climate change. As the shadow minister said, in response to this very report:
Australia is continually being embarrassed on a global stage by Tony Abbott's ideological attack on Australia's future.
This is an attack on future generations and it is blindingly ideological, with the environmental failures not confined to climate change. We see the Great Barrier Reef under threat, and it seems the only recourse to protect it is the courts. There are very significant challenges, to say the least, to Tasmania's wilderness through the proposed delisting of much of the wilderness World Heritage Area on the one hand and the state government's promise to tear up the forest agreement on the other. This list could go on, but the point is this: we are going backwards. I read with interest an article by Nick Feik in the Saturday Paper last weekend. This bears eloquent testimony to the environmental credentials of this government as it subordinates environmental protection to short-term commercial consideration. The article acknowledges that this may be one area of policy making where the government is, at least in broad terms, implementing an agenda set out prior to the election. I quote:
But the brute efficiency of its program to damage environmental interests has been breathtaking.
It certainly has been. Accompanied by the trademark cuts to bodies providing independent advice or checks to government action, from the Climate Commission to environment defenders offices in states and territories. So it grates more than just a little when the minister asserts the Green Army is a 'central component of the government's cleaner environment plan.' And also that it complements, apparently, direct action, but more on that point later.
I note that there was no formal coalition environment policy going into the last election on this point. This begs the question: where is the rest of this government's cleaner environment plan? What evidence is there of any commitment on the part of this government to stand up for our beautiful natural environment that is at the core of Australia's patrimony? This context is important when discussing this bill.
While I have some concerns about the legislation before us, my wider concern is the opposition this government and this minister seem to have to environmentalism and the priority it has allocated to the preservation and protection of our environment. The fact is, there is no coherent environment policy under this minister or this government, and legislation such as this, however beneficial it might be, can be no substitute for such an agenda.
Having said that, I turn to the provisions of the legislation before us, which, of course, rest on Labor foundations. Previous programs, some of which were touched upon by the previous speaker, but starting with the Keating government's Landcare and Environment Action Program in 1992 set out two critical objectives: providing work opportunities for young people and supporting community action to promote important environmental outcomes. Both objectives are vital.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to make certain specifications, particularly: with some limited exceptions, recipients of the Green Army allowance are not also able to receive a social security benefit or pension; income testing arrangements apply to the social security pension of a Green Army participant's partner; and participants who are not Green Army team supervisors are not to be treated as workers or employees for the purposes of certain Commonwealth laws. It is the last aspect of this bill that I find most troubling and I will focus the balance of my contribution on that.
When reading through the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the minister's second reading speech it is clear, despite claims to the contrary, that this program is an employment program. Labor's position on employment is clear—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. As well as their pay, a person's employment conditions are a big part of being employed. Conditions include fundamental things like occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation rights. The government wants the program's participants to perform work and, to its credit, it is proposing to pay a comparable training wage. But someone's pay must also take into account their conditions and basic protections. The minister invokes the precedent of Work for the Dole and the Howard-era Green Corps programs but does not explain why these are precedents that should be followed—funny, that.
According to the Green Army Program Draft Statement of Requirements Consultation Process document, the Green Army Program service providers are required to obtain and maintain insurance. There is a vague reference to the government purchasing personal accident insurance and products and public liability insurance to cover participants in the program. However, nothing in the proposed legislation before us addresses the critical issue of the extent to which Green Army service providers will be required to provide suitable insurance. Even where insurance is in place, it differs from workers compensation cover in that an injured participant is likely to have to demonstrate negligence by the provider. These disputes can take many years and great expense to resolve, and young volunteers are highly unlikely to have the resources to singlehandedly pursue such claims however meritorious they may be. As such, compared to workers generally, a lower standard of protection is being offered to Green Army participants, particularly given the physical and outdoor nature of the tasks they are doing.
Of course, the workplace relations environment has changed in recent years. Most states and territories had referred their industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth by 2010. This means that the Fair Work Act, and the National Employment Standards contained within it, has been the framework for a national workplace relations system, which includes all private sector employment other than employment by non-constitutional corporations in Western Australia. This is important because under previous schemes participants would have been covered by state and territory employment laws, but this will no longer be the case. What is the rationale behind this, I ask? There is nothing by way of explanation in any of the publicly available information. This just seems like more slipshod government by way of slogans. The government's website offers no further clues. It has one brief page on the Green Army, a link to a draft statement of requirements, and at the bottom of this page is a generic email and a 1800 number for people to call. That is it. Surely, if the government wants the support not just of this parliament and the people of Australia but of those it wants to participate in this program, it should provide this detail to enable potential participants to effectively determine the basis of their participation—it cannot be too much to ask. If the government can acknowledge that the program's participants are performing work worthy of the training wage, then surely it should ensure that they have the same OHS, workers compensation and rehabilitation standards.
Labor supports helping people find work and giving them the skills and experience to do so. I am sure those opposite do so too, but this bill leaves out so much information it is as if no real thought has gone into the mechanics of the program's operation—a matter members opposite are generally keen to find fault on when little thought has allegedly gone in from this side of the House. For example, there are no minimum hours specified. This is ominous. In the UK, the Office of National Statistics reveals that over half a million workers were forced to sign zero-hour contracts, though the figure is likely to be higher as many employees are employed this way without them realising. Such contracts entail an employee being on-call, without a minimum amount of weekly work specified in the contract. Some big UK employers have 90 per cent of their workforce on such contracts. I hope this is not the beginning of such a trend in Australia, although it does appear that the promotion of insecure work will be the inevitable consequence, if not the central objective, of this government's policy settings.
I also note the concerns of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights with respect to the right to social security and the right to work, neither of which has been addressed by the bill's statement of compatibility I am sorry to say. Regarding the right to social security, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that social security should be available, adequate and accessible. The joint committee contended that, in excluding Green Army participants from receiving other benefits or pensions, the bill may limit the right to social security. This is of some concern. The committee, quoting from Article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, goes on to observe that the right to social security may be subject to such limitations 'as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.' The committee states:
It is necessary for the government to demonstrate that the measure pursues a legitimate objective and has a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the objective sought to be realised.
The committee goes on to note that it is unclear whether or not participants may actually be worse off by virtue of their receiving the Green Army allowance rather than income support and whether the allowance 'will be sufficient to meet minimum essential levels of social security'. In respect of the right to work the committee states that the exclusion of Green Army Program participants from such laws may constitute a limitation on the right to just and favourable conditions of employment, as specified in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. While the committee notes that participation in the program is voluntary, it suggests that, because the participation may be on a full-time basis and constitute a participant's sole means of earning a living, it should be treated as work and participants should be treated as workers or employees under the abovementioned Commonwealth laws. I note that the committee is seeking further information from the minister on the above matters and, on this side of the chamber, we join the committee in waiting with keen interest for the minister's response. These are matters I am deeply concerned by.
I also have some questions about what would happen to a participant of this program if they wished to raise a complaint about their supervisor or provider. Can they join a union? Can they go to the Fair Work Ombudsman? What are the channels for addressing these complaints should they arise? These are significant matters that have not been touched upon. Again, the minister has provided information which is, at best, unhelpful. The minister seems to taking a 'she'll be right' approach to this policy as well as to the profound challenge that climate change poses. Indeed, the minister in his second reading speech mentions climate change only once, as a mere afterthought. It is unclear what exactly has happened to direct action, which this legislation apparently complements—although it is unclear precisely how. Is the government still of the view that paying polluters is the most efficient allocation of finite resources? As the scientific and economic consensus indicates—and as the minister used to acknowledge, and in fact advocate for—the most efficient way to allocate resources, and hence the most effective way to deal with the impact of climate change, is with a price on carbon through market mechanisms. When it comes to dealing with climate change, this government has its head in the sand. Perhaps getting the government to take its head out of the sand could be one of the Green Army's first keynote projects.
These sorts of programs, as touched upon by the member for Longman earlier, may well be very worthwhile programs in themselves; however, they need to supplement an actual coherent environmental policy, not just the 'direct distraction' on climate change and the environment more generally.
Members on this side support the objectives of this bill because we support taking local and global action on climate change. Of course, in the Labor Party, we support doing all we can to get people into work, into well-paid and secure jobs. On that very last point, it is these concerns regarding worker protections that need to be addressed by the minister before this bill is enacted. I call on him do so. I also call on him to start work on being a minister who is committed to being for the environment.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (20:01): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. There should be no surprise that this legislation is before the House today, because we have been promising the Green Army for years now. Now that we are the government, we are making good on our policy commitment.
What is this initiative all about? What benefits will it bring? Given the rising youth unemployment that has been a legacy of recent years, there is no doubt that there is a place for a program that is designed to provide employment opportunities for young Australians aged 17 to 24. This program can help young people gain training and experience in the environmental field. They can also gain a better understanding of heritage and conservation matters. This is the sort of work that enables young people to look at careers in conservation management, while also working on projects that generate real benefits for—and real visual change in—the Australian environment.
Just this morning I was reading in the newspaper about a young man who could not get a job because of a lack of transport and a lack of experience. In my electorate of Cowan, there are many opportunities for Green Army projects to be taken up by service providers and project sponsors. When I look around the 180 square kilometres of Cowan, it is easy to see the potential—places like Warwick bushland, Koondoola bushland, or the lakes of Cowan, such as Lake Goollelal in Kingsley, Lake Joondalup or even Emu Lake in Ballajura. There are extensive bushland tracts throughout the electorate and, because there are many, they are not hard to get to as the public transport is pretty good. It is therefore easy to see the opportunities that the Green Army will provide—not only opportunities for young people but also opportunities to achieve great environmental results. I therefore encourage the cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo and Swan to look at the opportunities to look after their young people and achieve benefits for the environment.
The concept of this program is that the Green Army will be made up of teams of 10 people: one supervisor and up to nine participants. These teams will be deployed to help communities deliver local conservation outcomes. The great thing about the program is that each project will be guided by local community needs. It really is local action, and through that local action the projects will contribute to Australia's environmental priorities and obligations.
The program will support 250 projects in 2014-15, then 500 projects in the following year and 750 projects in 2016-17. This is a long-term, ongoing program. Beyond the $300 million to cover these first three years, there will be more funding in the future.
From here, the request for tender will soon be available. Following the tender process, contractors can be engaged. They will then engage teams and manage activities to ensure projects are completed and will report regularly on progress.
Next there will be the need for project sponsors. This is where we will see local input into the proposal and development of local projects. Again, by way of example I can see the City of Wanneroo coming up with projects around such places as Lake Gnangara. The Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park could also propose work around Lake Goollelal, and the same with the Friends of Warwick Bushland. I also think about the opportunities for the Koondoola bushland, an area severely burnt out in a bushfire a couple of years ago.
When I think of the friends groups around the Cowan electorate, I particularly think of dedicated volunteers achieving very good results with minimal assistance from all levels of government. Every month or so they have their work days, which target particular problems or areas that are in need of remediation. These work days include a focus on places such as Frog Hollow, Duck Landing, or even Hocking Road. From this sort of position, I know that the Friends of Yellagonga are literally the experts and their excellent local knowledge will be needed. Therefore, I encourage their input. Perhaps they may even seek a supervisor position or two. They would be employed by the service providers.
Regardless of whether they decide to take up the opportunity or not, I would like to thank the Friends of Yellagonga for their environmental work to date. In particular, I would like to thank their committee: the chair, Kevin McLeod; vice chair, Marian Napier-Winch; treasurer, John Stenton; secretary, Heather Chester; the volunteers coordinator, Graham Sinclair; and general committee members John Chester, Sue Walker, David Taggart, Will Carstairs and Rebekkah Lamont.
I encourage the friends groups and the local governments to start working on proposals that they would like to see undertaken in their areas. Proposals will be assessed and recommended to the Minister for the Environment for approval.
I have certainly seen what benefits will flow to the environment in Cowan and what advantages can be gained for local sponsors; however, this is mostly about the opportunities for young people. Those young people aged between 17 and 24 years will be the participants. They could be school leavers, gap year students, graduates, the unemployed or even people with disabilities.
What this specifically means for participants is that they will generally be engaged for 30 hours per week on a project. That involves undertaking formal training in work-readiness, conservation and land management, heritage conservation, leadership, project and human resource management, and trades. Where possible, certificate I or II qualifications will be sought, although depending on the circumstances credit for units at more advanced levels may also be obtained. All participants will be paid an allowance. Anyone interested on any level can send an email to greenarmy@environment.gov.au.
I support this program very simply because it is a way to assist young people to get skills and qualifications while at the same time helping achieve environmental outcomes in Cowan. This is the sort of opportunity that all young people in Cowan, whether they live in Ballajura, Tapping, Warwick, Gnangara or anywhere, would be close to and could benefit from. Across Australia, the benefits for young people and the environment will be clear. The Green Army will be our biggest ever environmental workforce, with 15,000 by 2018, and some 1,500 projects. On such a scale, the benefits of habitat preservation, weeding, planting and cleaning up lakes and rivers will be immense. Of course, this is not in isolation to other Abbott government efforts. We will still see the National Landcare Program, direct action, the 20 million trees program and the Indigenous ranger program, all providing benefits across Australia and not undermining jobs, as the anti-Western Australian carbon tax does.
Of course, any discussion of the Green Army has to cover more than just skills and environmental benefits. The team supervisor will be an employee of the service provider and they will be paid a wage that is consistent with the relevant award, which is the Gardening and Landscaping Services Award. For the participants, they will be paid a Green Army allowance and will not at the same time receive a social security benefit or a pension. Through amendments to various Commonwealth laws, the participants will not be considered workers or employees of the Commonwealth.
I fully support and endorse the Green Army concept because it is based on the Green Corps program of the Howard government. Environmentally it was a successful program, seeing the propagation and planting of more than 14 million trees and the clearing of more than 50,000 weeds. The program also saw in excess of 8,000 kilometres of fencing and more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks or boardwalks constructed or maintained. I support the Green Army Program because it achieves for young people and for the environment. I like it because it links into the local needs and priorities of our environment and is there for young people in the area, helping to get them skills, qualifications, experience and achievements. I look forward to the bill being passed and I again encourage sponsors in Cowan to think about specific projects that will really help the environment in Cowan.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:09): I am pleased to stand tonight to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I have been looking forward to an opportunity to do so for some time. There are many of my colleagues on this side that have addressed issues in the bill relating to the training, or the lack of training, for the participants and the lack of protections in the case of injury, but I am not going to spend much time talking on that tonight. I actually want to talk about the environment.
I remember that, when this program was launched by Tony Abbott in the election campaign, it was launched clearly as part of his Direct Action strategy. They were going to move away from a market based mechanism and go to direct action, and they were going to create a Green Army across the country. It was a part of Direct Action and part of their environmental program. So I want to talk today about a $300 million program that purports to be about the environment and look at whether or not there are alternatives that might be more effective, both in terms of local environmental protection and in terms of spend. The government talks a lot about value for money, so let us have a look at this program.
It purported originally to be about the environment. If you look at the bill and hear the speakers on the other side, it seems to have morphed into something else. It is somewhere between a training program and a volunteer program, except there is no training budget, so it seems to have morphed but it was about the environment. We have a Minister for the Environment at the moment on the government's side that rarely mentions the environment. We on this side of the House wait for him in question time to get up and talk about the environment, ever—he never does. Today he actually used the word 'forest' and I got excited because I thought the environment minister was going to talk about the environment, but he was referring to the member for Forrest. Imagine my disappointment when he went back to talking about on-road and off-road diesel, which does seem to be his main topic of conversation at the moment.
This Green Army Program is his program, and this is the first sign of any action on the environment that we have seen from the environment minister in nearly seven months, so it is worth looking at it in great detail. There is $300 million over the next four years, between 2014-15 and 2017-18. That is $300 million for 15,000 people over those four years, for 1,500 projects. I always do a quick calculation when I see numbers like this. There are 150 electorates, so we are talking about 10 projects on average per electorate. I expect Western Australia might have a few more, because 10 projects spread out over almost the entire state of Western Australia would not be particularly effective, but let's accept the average of 10 projects per electorate over the next four years. For those who can divide 10 by four, it is about two to three per year per electorate.
Ms Henderson: It is 1,500 projects over four years.
Ms OWENS: Yes, and divided by 150 it is 10. You do the maths: 1,500 divided by 150 is 10. Go back to school. Ten projects over four years—
Ms Henderson: 1,500 projects over four years.
Ms OWENS: It is 10. Get your pencil out and do the maths. It is 10 per electorate over four years—that is two to three per year, starting with one and growing. When you look at that as a group of 10 projects using volunteers who are unskilled, who are not necessarily fit and who are doing a job they have never done before, that is actually a very small amount of effort in the environmental work in an electorate. But consider what a council would do—what my Parramatta council would do—with 10 projects worth $200,000 each. That is what they are worth each, if you divide the $300 million by the number of projects. I know that when this program is implemented—if it is—then a lot of that money will go into the administration of the program. However, if you look at it as 10 contracts worth $200,000 each, I know my councils could achieve a great deal of local environmental work with that amount of money and do it with professionals in a way which had an ongoing life. When you look at the program rolled out in total, that would be 10 projects at $200,000 each per year in each electorate, working on the figures we have been given. And, again, imagine what a local council could do with that, including taking on apprentices or having the organisations that deliver those projects taking on apprentices—real pathways to employment and real environmental work being done by experts.
Environmental work has to be done by experts. It is actually very difficult, and it takes years to get the canopy, the under-storey and the groundcover right when you are refurbishing bushland. And it takes more years again to get the mix of insects and bird life back to an appropriate level to sustain life in the bushes. It is highly skilled, and it is ongoing. It is like trying to stay healthy—you do not do it just for this month or just for this year and then give it up; you do it for all of your life. And you do environmental work for the life of the forest. In my electorate of Parramatta, and I suspect it is the same for all of your electorates, there is a growing group of highly skilled small businesses that specialise in environmental refurbishment. It is what they do. I have one in my electorate that specialises in native grasses. That is how detailed it is—just native grasses. It is quite remarkable. But I have several of them that are engaged by council to refurbish bushland, to provide advice. They are engaged by businesses to deal with the land around their factories and premises—highly skilled small businesses that have trained for years and that work incredibly well, and it is a growing specialty. And as more and more Australians realise that what we want around us is our native bushland, it is going to be an area of small business that continues to grow.
One of my concerns with this influx of cheap, untrained labour into what is a growing, highly skilled area is that we will see councils effectively cost-shifting from the professional services that are currently going to small businesses to the low-paid Green Army of unskilled labour. We will see a crowding out of an incredibly important part of our small business economy and a part of our economy that we need to grow if we want this country to be environmentally as strong as it could be. For me, that is a great concern, and I do not see anything in the legislation or anything coming from the government side that gives me confidence that there will not be protections against councils cost-shifting from their current budgets to professional small businesses to a Commonwealth-funded cheap labour force. And unless you can provide me with those sorts of protections, I will be up here screaming on behalf of my small business community that is about to get done in by cheap labour that is unskilled. I will be up here every day until the government can provide me with some guarantees that it will not happen. And I tell you, with what you are talking about at the moment, it will happen. And there will be several quite good local businesses in my area—as there will be all across the country—that will find it very difficult to get work because of this influx of unskilled and low-wage labour.
I want to talk about the previous Green Corps program, which I have heard talked about here quite a bit—the Howard government one—and what it did. I have heard about the 14 million trees, I have heard about the fencing, I have heard about the weed removal—all really important stuff. But anybody who knows anything about environmental refurbishment knows that if you pull the weeds out today and you do not have an ongoing program, they will be back next year. Really simple—they will be back next year. Pull them out today, pull them out this year—they will be back next year. If you want to implement a good local environmental policy, it has to have life beyond one year. It has to have life beyond one project. It has to have somebody or some organisation that has responsibility for that area of land with ongoing contributions towards its maintenance. And there is nothing in this program that does that—this is one-off stuff. One year—plant some trees, no-one takes care of them, drought comes along, down they go. This is naive at best. Talk to an expert about environmental management, or about refurbishment of the land, and they will tell you that it is something you do forever. It is not something you do for only one year. Rip out the blackberry today—in two years it will be back as bad as ever. I guess then you can send another group in, because you will be doing this for a while, so perhaps you can just keep repeating the same actions over and over again.
I want to quote a statement by Glenn Albrecht, professor of sustainability at Murdoch University, commenting on the Green Corps program under the Howard government. He talked about the 14 million trees, he talked about the fencing and he talked about the 50,000 hectares of weeds. And he said this:
If it's really just weeding and tree planting, similar to the sorts of things that were done under the Howard government's programs, a lot of that work, particularly in periods of savage drought, was simply undone because there was no long-term follow-up.
That is a statement from the expert. What we have here is a program that at first glance appears to be an incredibly inefficient use of taxpayers' money in terms of local environmental work, a program that is one-off, that does not provide the ongoing environmental work that is required to sustain the improvement over time, that brings low-pay wages and unskilled labour into an area of growing skill without any guidelines or protections to ensure that local councils do not simply shift their costs from the professional side of the business to the amateur side. And I tell you, that is what we are going to see happening.
So I will be watching this program very carefully over the next few months as it works its way through this House and the Senate. There is so little detail in it at the moment that deals with the real issues and how this program will work that it is very difficult to find genuine support for it. I will be watching it very closely, and I would hope that the members of the government would also consider whether or not this is the most effective use of $300 million of taxpayers' money.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Flight MH370
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (20:21): I wish to update the House with the latest developments in the search for ill-fated flight MH370. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has advised that objects have been located by a Royal Australian Air Force P-3 Orion. I can advise the House that HMAS Success is on the scene and is attempting to locate and recover these objects. The objects were spotted in the search area, about 2,500 kilometres south-west of Perth, at about 2:45pm our time. The crew on board the Orion reported seeing two objects, the first a grey or green circular object and the second an orange rectangular object. These are separate to the objects reported earlier today by a Chinese search aircraft.
I can advise the House that a US Navy Poseidon, a second Royal Australian Air Force Orion, and a Japanese Orion, are also en route to, or in, the search area. Planes and ships continue to search the area for any sign of the missing aircraft. I again caution that we do not know whether any of these objects are from MH370. They could be flotsam. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that we can recover these objects soon, and that they will take us a step closer to resolving this tragic mystery. This is an extraordinary mystery, an absolutely baffling mystery. Let me reiterate to the House that we owe it to the families of those on board, we owe it to the loved ones of those on board and we owe it to all the people who are concerned about the fate of this aircraft to do whatever we reasonably can to find anything that is out there, test it, and see what we can learn about what has so far been one of the great mysteries of our time.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (20:24): I seek to associate the opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister. We also wish to put on record our gratitude for the efforts of Australian service people who are assisting in trying to answer this most difficult and tragic of questions. All around the world bad things happen to good people, but there is something about a plane disappearing that links all the citizens of the globe. Anyone who entrusts their life to an aeroplane and the skills of the engineers and the pilots appreciates that this mystery brings this truth home in a way other disasters around the world do not always bring home to the lounge rooms and living rooms of Australia.
The people who have disappeared on this flight could be any of us. For all those who fly, and all those who have loved ones who fly, we sincerely hope we can find answers to this most troubling, disturbing and tragic of incidents.
BILLS
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014
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 notes the:
(1) program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation given the poor environmental record of the current Government;
(2) bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation;
(3) Government should clarify why participants do not have employee status even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage;
(4) Government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers;
(5) lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and
(6) importance of supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities."
Ms SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (20:25): This bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security for related purposes opens the door of opportunity for the Green Army projects to be rolled out. The Green Army is a hands-on, practical, grassroots environmental action program that supports local environment and heritage conservation projects across Australia. Young Australians aged 17 to 24 will have a chance to gain training and experience in environmental and heritage conservation fields, and explore careers in conservation management. Our youth will build on their levels of self-confidence, while participating in projects that generate real benefits for the Australian environment.
Green Army teams of 10, up to nine participants and one team supervisor, will be working across the country to help local communities deliver local outcomes. The Green Army Programme is ongoing, and initially up to $300 million is available over three years from 1 July 2014. The program will support 250 projects this year, 500 in 2015-16, and 750 in 2016-17. We have heard that those opposite see this proposal as a way of displacing existing workers. There is apparently considerable confusion on the other side about the program rollout. These Green Army projects are not a part of the existing project line-up of works for councils, but are additional wish list projects that currently have no money for labour.
The previous Green Corps projects were extremely well coordinated, with an excellent array of courses that equipped young people with skills and a work ethic that enabled them to enter the workforce, and many of them did. This is not designed to be a direct work pathway, but more importantly it is a preparation to be work ready, to be work motivated, and to have a successful outcome behind them so they have something to build on for their future. In no way is the Green Army a substitute workforce, and to interpret this legislation in that way is just wrong. Those opposite even refer to these young people as volunteers. One of the previous speakers used this exact term. These young people are not workers, they are volunteers, and as a consequence there are different regimes that support this scheme.
The previous schemes were effective and successful, trying not to be distracted by red tape implications. This legislation is about people and human capacity. This truly is a value for money initiative, with overlapping benefits. A sound approach to our future is to have different portfolios overlap for increased benefit. So how do we evaluate the interaction between youth initiatives that build self esteem, the environmental benefit, and the economic benefit of the future? To coldly dismiss the human capacity of our unemployed youth is callous at best, and discriminatory at worst. Environmental repair does not have to be done solely by experts. In fact some catchment management authorities actively advise that bush regeneration can be achieved in overgrazed paddocks by simply closing the gates.
Green Army participants will most likely be engaged full-time for around about 30 hours per week on a project, and they will undertake formal training in areas such as work readiness, conservation and land management, heritage conservation, leadership, project and human resource management, and trades. Where possible the young people who are part of this scheme will be assisted to obtain Certificate I or Certificate II qualifications. Extra units may also be undertaken towards more advanced levels. All participants will be paid an allowance.
The concept of a group of young people working on an environmental project for community benefit is not new to Gilmore. In the past there were a number of very successful Green Corps projects. Many of the mangroves and casuarinas on the banks of the Shoalhaven River are testimony to the great work that was done. Over the last years, Charlie Weir has become the celebrated mangrove man, working as an amazing volunteer to continue this work, growing and planting seedlings to prevent riverbank erosion since the program was shut down by the previous government. The Rivercare group are eagerly awaiting the resumption of this great program.
Some of the participants from those earlier programs found a love of the outdoors, going on to get work on golf courses, with landscape businesses and bush regeneration projects, and even treating noxious weeds. But, overall, the self-esteem developed by these young people is beyond financial measure. The skills learned then are also expected from the new programs, including the development of effective workplace communication and the development of confidence and motivation to remain strongly connected to the community and community service activities. This is an opportunity to develop a work ethic, including team work, and achieve a level of personal positive growth. These are practical skills and attributes that are relevant to gaining ongoing employment, and the training options are some of the best foundations for future work. The additional aspects of the Green Army projects where planning, problem solving and progress review are essential will always stand these young people in good stead for future employment. In addition, they will have a chance to develop a network of industry contacts, training providers and community members. These provide opportunities for ongoing employment and training, assisting them to make informed career and work choices into their future based on the experiences gained from the project.
Gilmore already has a commitment for four Green Army projects and I will be proud to see them start in the new financial year. One project is based on the bushland area near Jerrara dam. This is an area in Kiama that has been worked on for many years by Neil Hawkins and landcare groups to re-establish native species and replant many of the trees that were harvested for timber in the settlement days. This arboretum will gain low-impact pathways, possible plant identifiers and bush regeneration. Eventually, the local community would like to see an outdoor classroom in this location.
The second project is in the Killalea State Park, part of the South Coast Network and established in consultation with the Shellharbour City Council. The rangers and training teams are well prepared and well structured for the benefit of the young people to be involved. This a missing link between two significant and iconic locations, Shellharbour village and Killalea, providing tourism outcomes and opportunities for local residents. This is a great connection between a built-up urban area and a spectacular passive environmental area with famous surfing beaches.
In the Shoalhaven, we need urgent riverbank treatment to prevent further flood scouring and to maintain the land mass between farmland, a road reserve and Bolong Road, which is an alternative route for the South Coast when the Princes Highway is closed due to accidents. This project will have the combined efforts of council, farm owners, Rivercare and businesses, all working with the Green Army for a great outcome. A second Shoalhaven project in Lake Conjola builds on the original work carried out by a similar program more than 20 years ago, but the work was not completed. The foreshore needs repair and extensive replanting is required to protect the edge and preserve the area.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 has a multitude of benefits for many, initially by allowing the appropriate financial set-up and support systems so that it is responsible in the way the taxpayer dollar is used and, more importantly, by allowing young people who wish to engage with their community to have an opportunity to learn work skills and team contribution and to build self-esteem. At the same time, the community will gain from the human potential being expressed and the improvement to an environmental asset. There would be very few who would not recognise the amazing potential of this scheme, particularly in a regional area with significant levels of youth unemployment.
It is important with this bill that we ensure that the young participants will be in receipt of a single scheme of taxpayer financial support. The Green Army allowance is a great way to assist these young people while they get involved in a program that already has a proven record of success in Gilmore. The only possibly disappointing part of this program is the dark cloud developing from those members sitting opposite and their colleagues in the Senate. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might ask why this is the case. The Green Army Program is part of a suite of changes that will allow young people the right to get training and participate in a great community project. It is possible that those on the other side of this chamber may choose to block these changes in the Senate. They may put their political agenda as the most important task they have in this House rather than the welfare of our unemployed youth.
For six months now, I have witnessed legislation placed before the members opposite that had some incorporated Labor commitments that were stated and advertised before the last election. Yes, I did say we have taken some of their commitments into our own legislative agenda. What is the reason for my concern? Those opposite have rejected these very pieces of legislation in the Senate. There is absolutely no consistency at all. As a new member of parliament, I find this somewhat confusing. We are 150 representatives for our nation and I believe we are here for the overall betterment of Australia. One of the most significant issues for us all is, of course, youth unemployment.
Many Australians who are usually not too interested in politics are also confused. We have all been waiting for the Senate and those opposite to realise that they actually lost the election. The overall vote in Australia told us that the everyday Aussie wanted a change in direction. We went to the election with a very explicit set of commitments. The Australian voters have put their faith in us to fix what we all saw as a nation in decline. Signals such as debt climbing to levels never seen before, unemployment by Labor's own estimates set to increase and policies made on the hop with little thought as to the consequences all made Australians vote for change.
The Green Army Program is symbolic of this change. It is environmentally worthy. It offers personal growth for many unemployed youth to re-engage with the community at so many different levels, and it is part of a legislative program for change. There are many groups in Gilmore eagerly awaiting the rollout of this program. In fact, there are community groups that have given me additional possibilities for other sites where this program would work and work well. The projects in Shellharbour, Kiama and the Shoalhaven will most likely address the needs of some of our Indigenous youth who have yet to gain employment. In particular, our Indigenous young people find it a great way to mix with other members of the community. The level of cooperation between young people of many different experiences and backgrounds who have never before worked together or socialised is heart-warming.
We as a community need projects like the Green Army to engage youth, to grow their potential and capitalise on their ability to really get involved, which is very often their most important desire. I wonder if those in opposition have any idea how projects such as the Green Army will change the lives of these young people, build their self-belief and reinforce to the community at large that they have the potential to give back to their nation, that they are wonderful contributors and that they are valuable and worth our every effort to re-engage. We owe these young people our assistance in the construction of their self-belief, as they acknowledge their own value and growing confidence. We owe it to them to help them to stop living in a holding pattern of unemployment and disengagement. In so many cases this can lead to social isolation, depression and other mental illness behaviours. I wonder if those opposite have the courage to put aside their political agenda for the sake of our youth. The moral fibre here is to look after our young people rather than look after our own political position. Surely, that is our task, first and foremost. Will those opposite cast doubt, yet again, on such a great initiative? Will they finally decide that, for the greater good of our nation, they should allow this legislation to actually pass in the Senate?
Perhaps it is also time for those opposite to acknowledge that pure ideology is no justification for their 'no' position on the repeals of the carbon tax and the minerals resource rent tax—both of which are impacting on the ability of businesses to offer employment. This impact is not just on our youth but also on other people unable to find employment, although they truly do want to work. These two taxes increase input costs on business, slowing growth and reducing the bottom line—both of which are reducing potential employment. Our youth, our Australian families and our businesses are all experiencing the negative fallout from the political posturing of those opposite. Our government as a whole owes to the people of Australia stability and a positive financial outlook that will lead to opportunities in employment.
The Green Army is a very symbolic example of a program that encapsulates optimism for the future. We have a difficult legacy to overcome, and the Green Army is one step in addressing youth unemployment. That should be a priority for us all. Previous speakers referred to the naivety of this program. I invite all of you to come to Gilmore to see the successful evidence of the work done. Talk to our Rivercare and Landcare groups rather than spruiking ill-informed opinions. Come and see with your own eyes and talk to the supervisors, who cannot wait to see the program reintroduced. I commend this bill.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (20:39): I rise today to support the amendment moved by the member of Port Adelaide to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, which is before the House. The fundamentals of this program are, after all, very much part of Labor's heritage, stretching back more than 20 years to a Keating government initiative introduced in 1992. The program, then called the Landcare and Environment Action Program, or LEAP, focused on providing work opportunities for young people and fostering good environmental outcomes. These are core Labor values, and we are proud to have supported this program through its various iterations under the governments of the last 20 years. While Labor continues to support the Green Army initiative in principle, the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide is absolutely needed to broaden debate on this bill to allow much wider discussion than one focused solely on social security entitlements. This debate needs to address a wide range of issues, including how participants are protected if injured, what training is or should be provided, what supports will be provided to assist people to actually make the transition into ongoing employment and what risks there are for displacement of existing workers. It is only prudent to do so.
Labor agrees that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. We know well the dignity that comes from having a job. Every individual who can work should be given that chance. But we know that can only happen with appropriate support and protection. Regretfully, the government, as expected by the people whom I represent in Newcastle, has not laid out the detail required for a proper analysis or discussion of this program. If we take a look at this program from the point of view of it being perhaps an environmental initiative, then we really need to look at this government's environmental record, because this government lacks all credibility when it comes to the environment. Its record in just six short months is truly astounding. From climate change to heritage icons, from conservation to shark culls, it is wreaking havoc across the whole portfolio. One is left wondering if this government is looking to send the Environment portfolio the same way as Science, and obliterate it from the government benches altogether.
Soon after coming to office, the Abbott government began rushing through a series of highly controversy environmental approvals. While rubber-stamping approvals that actually endangered our environment, the government also missed important opportunities to protect it, like with the disallowance of the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea. The government also went against all reason and advice and sneakily had the world's largest marine reserve system reproclaimed to undo the management plans that give it effect. The management plans for the marine reserves were based on extensive scientific analysis and informed by serious community and industry consultation. Twenty years of hard work—work that started under the Keating Labor government and, indeed, continued under John Howard—is all now thrown out the window. Not satisfied with the effective abolition of Australia's marine reserve system, the Abbott government has also begun the process of handing over extensive environmental approval powers to the states, giving Campbell Newman control over the Great Barrier Reef and allowing Colin Barnett to reign over the Ningaloo Reef. Environmental sites of national significance are now being controlled by state based interests—an act that flies in the face of all common sense and good practice.
This government has also all but abandoned efforts to have Queensland's Cape York region added to the World Heritage List and has approved every request for development in the Great Barrier Reef catchment that has landed on the minister's desk. It has given these approvals despite UNESCO threatening to list the Great Barrier Reef as being in danger. But it does not end there. Sharks in Western Australia are on this government's hit list, too, with the minister approving an exemption to the WA government to allow drum lining off the coast despite the complete lack of evidence that it will have any effect in reducing shark attacks. It is not just members on this side of the House that are against the shark cull. The member for Bowman also publicly called for a hold on shark culling. When originally approving the initial cull, the environment minister used a mechanism designed for national security issues to do so. This is all despite the fact that more people die from bee stings each year in Australia than shark attacks. This Abbott government is systematically destroying our international reputation on the environment. In fact, that is how it won its first award. In November last year, the government won the Climate Action Network's international 'Colossal Fossil of the Year Award'. I read from the network's website an explanation of the awarding of the fossil:
The new Australian Government has won its first major international award – the Colossal Fossil. The delegation came here with legislation in its back pocket to repeal the carbon price, failed to take independent advice to increase its carbon pollution reduction target and has been blocking progress in the loss and damage negotiations. Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi!
To wrap up their impressive environmental record, most recently the government has approached the World Heritage Committee to de-list 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, while the new Liberal Premier of Tasmania has promised to tear up the Tasmanian forest agreement. This is a devastating outcome for the Tasmanian economy as well as the environment, and this government's record on the environment is shameful by any reckoning. It is this government to which we will be entrusting our young people for the Green Army Program. The government has been entrusted with one of the greatest honours in public life: to protect and promote Australia's magnificent natural assets. Instead it is intent on destroying them, and the Prime Minister is not embarrassed for the whole world to know what he is doing.
But let us have a look at whether this program is in fact intended to be a form of labour employment program. We need to have a look at issues of protection for workers health and safety, workers comp and rehabilitation. We on this side of the House think that the bill in question today does not provide adequate protections for participants in the Green Army scheme, namely in the areas of workplace health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. If the government were truly concerned about these matters, they would ensure that the participants are deemed employees and, as such, are covered by a range of Commonwealth laws, including the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Given the bill provides alarming exemptions from those acts, it is imperative that the consequences of such exemptions be considered in detail—detail that is yet to be presented. This government makes a point that people are to be paid a comparable training wage. If that is the case then why are participants not treated as workers? Like everything, Australians are right to be suspicious of the motives of this government. The government has made clear that health and safety and looking after those who need help to get back on their feet are not priorities.
The government is also seeking to deceive the Australian public into believing that this is an environmental program, because they do not have a coherent environmental policy. But make no mistake: this is an employment program and, as such, participants should be treated as employees. We acknowledge that the Green Army participants will be paid at the equivalent of a training wage, which while not overly generous will be more than the income support payments that many of them would likely be on. These payments will also be similar to the training wages received by thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training and education. But, unlike trainees or apprentices, participants in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth. Denying them the status of Commonwealth employee leaves them in a no-man's land in terms of employer-employee relationships, which afford a range of workplace rights.
A further concern of Labor is the concept of additionality or the potential to displace existing workers from other agencies and organisations. The government must assure those hardworking Australians in local government and other organisations and authorities that their employees will not be displaced and they will not rely upon Green Army participants to do their work. This is a very real concern. I have noticed in our own community the shedding of jobs in local government and the influx of volunteers doing a whole range of local government work. That is something that we need to be particularly mindful of. Volunteers are to be congratulated for the outstanding work they do in communities, but this should not be at the expense of displacing people in paid work. There is simply no justification for a program like the Green Army that can provide employment pathways if the participants then go on to displace existing workers. The pathways provided need to be new jobs, not supplementing good jobs that already exist. This potential displacement needs to be addressed by the government in its design of the program. We currently have no detail to give us confidence that this will not occur.
This amendment to the social security legislation as proposed by the government omits much of the detail related to workers rights, benefits and protection. The associated statement of requirements is equally thin on detail. Unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, causes great hardship to individuals, their families and their communities. Entrenched unemployment also undermines the economic strength of Australia. Labor believes in helping people to get a job through the right training, work experience, incentives and, most importantly, the appropriate level of support. I must digress slightly and emphasise that this is another reason why Labor is such a strong supporter of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the statement of requirements as an optional component of the program to be negotiated with each participant. That is right: optional registered training. This gives no confidence that participants will actually gain access to training.
The government is seriously short on detail when it comes to the training components of the Green Army Program. In which vocations and skill sets will training be provided to participants? Are these areas that have been identified by the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency as areas of emerging future skill needs? If they have not been identified as areas of emerging or future need, why have these been selected as priority areas of the government?
Labor supports providing training to young people but believes that this training should be aimed at providing them with marketable skills that are in demand by employers. In May 2011, AWPA identified a number of areas of emerging future skill needs in the green and energy efficiency skills sector in their report Energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings: jobs and skills implications. AWPA identified that energy efficiency initiatives call for jobs and skills in auditing and reporting, installation and maintenance of energy efficient appliances to meet revised building standards, assessment of new and existing buildings against rating systems, monitoring data output from energy management systems, tuning buildings for peak performance, marketing new and existing buildings in both commercial and residential sectors and drawing up green leases. In the green and energy efficiency skills sector, we have the opportunity to ensure that Australians have the skills to contribute to our response to the challenges of environmental sustainability. The government has a real opportunity to provide our young people with jobs for the future in this area and to provide a pathway from training to employment in this emerging industry. The training provided to young people needs to be accredited, it needs to have quality assurance, it needs to be meaningful and not just tick-a-box training. There is no work experience better than paid employment in a real workplace with serious support mechanisms to ensure all young people get to reach their full potential.
Labor believes that environmental based work and training programs can be an effective pathway to work for many job seekers, as well as providing environmental benefits. Workplace training programs have the potential, if well designed and implemented, to achieve these twin goals. If we do not address youth unemployment, there will be massive future costs—not just in terms of welfare and social support, but also in terms of an individual's lost opportunity.
Just last month I raised in this place the concerning youth unemployment issues faced in my electorate of Newcastle and more broadly across the country. Proper, needs-based school funding, university and training opportunities are all issues that this government is not taking seriously.
Real employment is one of the cornerstones of sustainable communities and economic development. Labor agrees that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. Every individual who can work should be given that chance, but that can happen only with appropriate support. The government needs to entrust the Australian people with details of its Green Army program. We deserve nothing less.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (20:54): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Program) Bill 2014. It is a great pleasure to make a contribution on this very important piece of legislation. The Green Army says much about our government's commitment to the environment, to real and practical environmental programs, and to investing in skills and training for young people.
In my first speech in this place, I spoke of the importance of caring for the environment for me and for the people of my electorate. Corangamite is a beautiful part of the world. It includes incredible coastline, surf beaches, national parks, precious creeks, rivers, rainforests, rolling farmland and of course the mighty Great Ocean Road. Many people move to my electorate because of their love of the environment. In my first speech I said that the Liberal Party has a strong tradition of practical environmentalism. It was the coalition which established stage 1 of Kakadu National Park and ended whaling in Australia. It was the coalition which put the Great Barrier Reef on a sustainable footing a decade ago. We are now delivering a 15,000-strong Green Army and tackling climate change. I commit myself to being a passionate defender of our precious environment.
In the contributions we have heard tonight from the member for Parramatta and the member for Newcastle, it was quite incredible that they said we must do everything to address youth unemployment. What do they think this scheme is? This scheme is about investing in young people, building pride, giving young people the opportunity to work in a team and to learn new skills. It is a very positive scheme with very important safeguards, which members opposite seem to be ignoring. Perhaps it indicates that those opposite do not really understand what it is like to be young and unemployed, because sometimes it is really tough to get your first job in full-time paid employment.
Dr Chalmers: And you do?
Ms HENDERSON: I will tell you what I know. I travel around my electorate. I speak to lots of young people in my electorate in Colac, in Belmont and in the federal electorate of Corio. I can see the impact that this is having on young people. Through this scheme we are valuing young people. We are helping to build pride, we are helping to give them skills because for so many people, under the previous federal government, they sat there day without a job! This is a scheme that is positive, this is a scheme that we are proud of.
The Green Army will make a real difference to the environment and to the local communities in my electorate. As I mentioned, it will be a 15,000-strong Green Army by 2018—the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia's history. It will recruit local people aged 17 to 24 to give them the hands-on experience, the skills, the training to boost their employment prospects. Up to nine eligible participants will work on one project with at least one team supervisor. It is a very substantial commitment of $300 million over four years. The government will provide an additional $222 million in 2017-18 and $289 million in 2018-19.
In my electorate of Corangamite, we are very excited by four Green Army projects that were announced prior to the election—in Lorne, in Apollo Bay, in Colac and in Queenscliff. The project in Queenscliff is a really good example of why members opposite have got this so wrong. This is not about replacing people in work; this is about creating new opportunities. In Queenscliff there is a real problem with the foreshore. The local council could not get funding, so we have committed the money required to completely rejuvenate the foreshore and to build a boardwalk. In fact it was such a problem that a local, Alistair Lang, who runs the local IGA, started a petition and raised 1,000 signatures in his supermarket. People were so upset about the state of the foreshore and I really do commend the work of Alistair Lang and the many others who joined forces to say, 'We want some action'. We are delivering.
I also want to commend the Borough of Queenscliff, who has worked so hard to pull together plans to rejuvenate the foreshore as well as the Bellarine Catchment Network and the Swan Bay Environment Network. Queenscliff is a wonderful historic town with so much to offer and the rejuvenation of their foreshore will make an enormous difference. Also, in Lorne, there will be a major project at the Lorne St George River tramway track to the west of Point Grey. Before reliable road transport emerged in the 1930s, it was an extensive tramway network which enabled heavy loads to be— (Time expired)
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (21:00): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Petition: Middle East
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (21:00): Today my fellow co-convenor of the parliamentary friends of Palestine, the member for Reid; the convenor of the UN parliamentary group, the member for Fremantle; and I had the pleasure of hosting the launch of the United Nations Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This commemorative year was initially launched at the beginning of the 2014 session of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in January this year following a decision by the UN General Assembly on 26 November 2013 proclaiming 2014 as the Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and requesting that the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People organise activities throughout 2014 in cooperation with governments, relevant organisations of the United Nations system, intergovernment organisations and civil society organisations.
The objectives of the IYSPP are to promote solidarity with the Palestinian people as a central theme, contributing to international awareness of (a) core themes regarding the question of Palestine, obstacles to the ongoing peace process, particularly those requiring urgent action such as the settlements, the question of Jerusalem, the blockade of Gaza and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territory and (b) the mobilisation of global action towards the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the question of Palestine in accordance with international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations.
I welcome the UN Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. For many years now the Palestinian people have asked for the international community to stand with them to broker a just and lasting solution to this very protracted issue in the pursuit of peace and security for both sides to this conflict. The UN Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is an opportunity for us as a parliament to look at how we can assist this process for the benefit of both the Israeli and Palestinian communities and also look at how Australia can effect a fair and balanced approach on this very important matter.
Today's launch here in Parliament House was attended by over 70 people, including members of parliament, senators, ambassadors, members of DFAT, members of the local Palestinian community and advocacy groups, as well as representatives from the international Australian charity the Global Gardens of Peace. Speakers included Ambassador Izzat Abdulhadi, the head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific; Mr Christopher Woodthorpe, the Director of the United Nations Information Centre for Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific; and Bishop George Browning, the President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. It was a very successful event, which gave us all the opportunity to hear and exchange views on this very important issue.
On another matter related to the Palestinian issue, I would like to table a petition from Just Peace for Palestine Brisbane, which is a subgroup of Just Peace Queensland Inc. This advocacy group aims to raise awareness about the ongoing human rights violations in Palestine. I wish to table in parliament their petition of 747 signatures. This petition was considered at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Petitions and is certified as being in accordance with standing orders.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens of Australia Draws to the attention of the House the United Nations Children's Fund report released in February 2013 'Children in Israeli Military Detention'. UNICEF reports on ill treatment of children who come into contact with the Israeli military detention system. The report concludes that the ill-treatment of children within the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process from the moment of arrest until the child's prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing.
We therefore ask the House to consider the UNICEF report and its recommendations and to report back to the Parliament on what actions will be taken by the Australian government to support Palestinian children suffering ill-treatment in Israeli military detention, in contravention of the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
from 747 citizens
Petition received.
Ms VAMVAKINOU: Several countries have repeated these accusations in the UN General Assembly. For my part, and in conclusion, I hope the continuous efforts of those affected by the situation in Palestine will help the international community in brokering a peaceful and acceptable result for all. It is my hope, and certainly of those who attended this afternoon, that Australia will be on the right side of history and use its standing on the Security Council to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East.
Cattle Industry
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (21:05): Tonight I would like to speak about the dilemma facing the cattle industry in not only Queensland but also New South Wales. Over the past two years the cattle growers have suffered a lot. It started with the banning of live cattle exports to Indonesia. This led to a halting of cattle movements throughout Queensland and it gutted the market completely. Then two years ago the drought hit, which compounded the problems. Queensland is now 80 per cent drought declared. Prices of cattle have plummeted. In Gracemere last week you could pick up a pen of fat cows—and there were some fat cows there—for 80 cents a kilogram. That is an unbelievably low price which has not been seen for many decades. Grain prices are high and feed lots are full. The producer cannot get back that cost of the feed lot when they sell the cattle.
On top of this, there are falling property valuations. In some cases properties have fallen from 30 to 50 per cent in valuation. This makes our cash equity with the banks an intolerable situation. Bank interest rates are still relatively high. Although we have a cash rate of 2½ per cent, I can tell the House that graziers are paying much more than that for their loans. Furthermore, the banks in my area started to foreclose on some properties last week and default notices were handed out to about 30 properties in my electorate.
Breeding stocks have been sold, so where do they go from here? If they get decent rainfall now it will still be another 18 months to two years before it returns any cash flow to their businesses. It is obvious some will not survive. Some will survive with federal and state government drought assistance—four per cent loans over five years. Some individual companies will survive and carry on regardless, and probably buy out those who go down the gurgler.
My concern is the future, with the financial institutions selling these properties up. There is no redundancy package for these property owners. They will not have a roof over their heads. Where do they relocate to? In most cases, all they know is cattle, how to look after cattle and breed good stock. Sadly, there are suicides—one a week, I am told. This is a disaster of historic proportions. And we cannot see the end of this—it is not just around the corner.
What needs to be done? We, as a government—both state and federal—must focus on the real issue and make it a high priority. Banks need to hold off; many of these businesses will be viable in the long run if only they are given a break. I ask the federal government to look at buying some of these properties and selling them back once good weather and good markets return. That would be a win-win situation, and the landholders at least would be able to leave the industry with some dignity.
The downturn is not just with the cattlemen themselves and their families. Whole rural towns that support the cattle industries are also suffering. Motels in the area have dropped from 80, 90 to 100 per cent occupancy in the good old days when we had the resource industry booming and the cattle industry booming down to two and five per cent. This is a tragedy for small towns. If farmers go, businesses go and small communities go—schools, police officers—and we also know that post offices are all under threat in these rural areas.
We need people to stay in the bush. And we need people from the cities to come and help. To those people in the cities who are unemployed: you are needed out in the bush, please come. Services are stretched and so are the bank balances, but there will be an end to it and, hopefully, it will be a good end when the rains fall shortly.
McEwen Electorate: Wallan GP Super Clinic
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (21:10): I would like to take this opportunity to speak on a project which holds great importance in my electorate of McEwen, but also one that I take great personal pride in seeing delivered.
I am speaking of the Wallan GP Super Clinic, which opened its doors to the public in December 2013 with the official opening being organised for a later date. Plans for the Wallan GP Super Clinic began back in 2007 after I first announced to the people of McEwen that Labor had allocated $1 million toward developing a state-of-the-art health facility in Wallan.
Upon being elected as the federal member for McEwen in 2010, I campaigned strongly for additional funding toward the Wallan GP Super Clinic. With overwhelming local support, I was able to secure an additional $2.5 million toward the project. Since 2010, I again lobbied the Labor government to secure yet another $3.5 million. In total, the former Labor government provided $7.1 million of funding toward the $9.2 million project. This is the biggest investment for health in the Wallan community ever. It delivers on my promise and Labor's promise to the Wallan community for a super clinic.
However, in 2009 progress was halted due to the Black Saturday bushfires. The previous member for McEwen wrote to the then health minister, Nicola Roxon, requesting a delay in the consultation process. Obviously, I agree that the delay was entirely appropriate. The delay in this project was supported by the local community, considering the exceptional circumstances which we faced.
Since our communities began to recuperate after Black Saturday, it was again full steam ahead for the GP super clinic. We work closely with Mitchell Shire Council to get the clinic off the ground, with the council even considering donating a site for us to build the new facility on. But the facility had outgrown that site and a new, more suitable site had to be found.
After extensive research and a robust tender process, Nexus Primary Health was selected to be the operator of the Wallan GP Super Clinic. Nexus Primary Health is bringing together a range of all round high-quality healthcare services, such as improved access to GPs, dietetics, physiotherapy, paediatrics, mental health counselling services and other services.
The GP super clinic provides more doctors and allied health services to the fast-growing communities of Wallan and Beveridge as well as communities of Wandong, Darrawiet Guim and Hidden Valley. Our super clinic is just one example of the many GP super clinics Labor has delivered to the people of Australia, benefitting communities right across the nation.
So far, GP super clinics have provided more than 3 million services to patients. I find it appalling that Minister Dutton has the gall to stand in this House and condemn the GP Super Clinics Program. In fact, it is not only disgraceful but quite hypocritical since in 2010 Minister Dutton came out to Wallan and misled the community by saying he would support the Wallan GP Super Clinic being built. But the people of Wallan were awake up to him, because at the same time the now Prime Minister was saying he wanted to scrap the building of the super clinic. I quote from a 5AA interview where he said—and always be very careful with the words of the PM, 'Let's be clear, we are not scrapping super clinics, we are just not building them.'
Minister Dutton has now found a voice criticising everything Labor does, and his bullying personal attacks on the member for Sydney show a complete and utter disrespect for his position. Even now in government, he is still behaving like he is in opposition. And remember, this is the minister who sat there for three years, the empty void of a shadow minister the health, and did not once ask a question of a Labor health minister in the 43rd Parliament. Not one question in three years; no wonder he got the hashtag #worldslaziestshadow! Minister Dutton has no policies on his own. To deflect this, he personally attacks the member for Sydney.
Growing areas like Wallan, have been struggling under the weight of growth and the inability to visit a doctor in the local community. Most doctors have closed their books and cannot see any new patients. This is a hangover of the doctor shortage created by the former Howard government.
I am proud to have delivered this facility to our community to provide the health care that our community needs. The Wallan GP Super Clinic and all GP super clinics currently in operation, including those being built as we speak, are a testament to Labor and our commitment to providing the best possible health care for all Australians.
Labor's policies to deliver health services to people when and where they need them were being implemented. All of this came to a grinding halt in September 2013. The minister may criticise and complain about Labor's health projects, but quick as a wink he is there ready to turn a sod, cut a ribbon and open them and claim all the glory for himself. The fact of the matter is the people in McEwen know that it is only Labor that delivers its promises and only Labor that delivers in health for our region.
Great Escape
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (21:15): Tonight marks the 70th anniversary of the great escape of 76 air force officers from Stalag Luft III at Sagan in Silesia, Germany—now in Poland—approximately 120 kilometres east of Berlin. The account of this most renowned escape of World War II was first published by Australian ex-prisoner of war, Paul Brickhill, but is best known today from the American screen version based on his book. The incredible ingenuity and courage of the escapees should be remembered today.
The Stalag Luft III prisoner-of-war camp was built early in the war, as the Nazi general, Goering, promised Hitler that he would build an escape proof camp for Allied air force officers. As the air war increased, four compounds were required, containing 10,000 prisoners of war. The north compound of 2,500 prisoners of war was strictly under the command of the senior British officer. On arrival at the camp, the adjutant first had you identified and verified by your fellow prisoners of war. You would then be asked privately if you wished to participate in escape activities—600 volunteered, including many Australians. Each was given his job to do under the most secure instructions—from digging to disposal of soil and from forging documents to being on the lookout for the ever watchful and suspicious German guards.
The escape tunnel used, named Harry, was 110 metres long, was over half a metre square and lay 7.6 metres under the ground. In March 1944 it became urgent to make the break, since the German commandant had notified Nazi headquarters that he had reason to believe a tunnel escape was planned but could not find the tunnel.
Thirty key men involved in the planning were chosen to escape. Of the 600 volunteers, 200 names were drawn by ballot. Seventy-six men escaped before the German guards stumbled upon the exit, which had unfortunately come up short of the planned spot. Only three men made it to freedom. Seventy-three men were recaptured. On Hitler's personal orders, 50 were murdered, including five Australians. This was despite the Geneva convention recognising that it was an officer's duty to escape if they could. The perpetrators of the murders were mainly brought to justice after the war.
It is unfortunate that this whole amazing event was filmed with ludicrous distortion of the truth in the final scenes of the movie. Although meticulous detail shows the ingenuity and genius of technical aspects of the escape, the necessity to sell the film using an American star as a hero in part of the ending has created the story many people now believe. In reality, there was snow on the ground and no motorbikes jumping wire fences. The film actually begins, 'Every word in this film is the truth', yet there were no American servicemen involved in the escape.
Tonight, I pay tribute to those five Australians who were murdered: Al Hake; Jimmy Catanach; Reg 'Rusty' Kierath; John Williams; and Thomas Leigh. I also pay tribute to all those courageous Australians who were prepared to put their lives at risk in this amazing but tragic episode. The Great Escape highlights the courage and determination of so many brave Allied airmen at Stalag Luft III; the courage that overcame insurmountable odds; the courage of those who reached safety; the courage of those captured; the courage of those who were brutally murdered; and the courage of those who were part of this magnificent effort. In the same way that we acknowledge courage in the heat of battle, it is appropriate that tonight of all nights we acknowledge and never forget the courage of these brave men. Our allies, particularly those from the United Kingdom and Canada, have arranged a special reunion in London today for the very few survivors and their relatives. Of the 600, we have only one Australian still alive. I salute them all.
Deregulation
Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (21:19): Last week, the government announced that there would be a bonfire of legislation. What was in this great vanity of a bonfire? There were three things. There was the repeal of what Fred Hilmer, the father of competition policy, called 'ghost acts'. These are acts such as the acts to repeal another act which could themselves be safely repealed because they were not troubling anyone. Then there was the repeal of protections for consumers of financial advice, which, thankfully, has been placed on pause. As the members for McMahon and Oxley have pointed out today, the coalition's FoFA changes achieved the unique configuration of being opposed not only by consumers groups but also by the Financial Planning Association themselves. The third piece of the bonfire was the repeal of the charities commission.
As so many members of this House have pointed out—Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, and Senator Ursula Stephens being chief among them—the charities commission was put in place in order to reduce the regulatory burden on charities and to protect charitable donors to make sure that they had an agency to which they could lodge complaints if they were victims of scams. The charities commission has been supported by four out of five charities. In an open letter, charities—including Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline, the RSPCA, ACOSS, the Sidney Myer Fund, the Hillsong Church, Social Ventures Australia, the YMCA and the Queensland Theatre Company—have called for the ACNC to be retained. Instead, we have a bill from Minister Andrews which repeals the charities commission without saying what will come in its place. This is a bill which reads more like a media alert than a serious piece of legislation. It contains clauses such as:
The successor Agency is the Agency specified in a determination under subitem (2).
In fact, it is entirely unclear to the sector what the government intends should replace the charities commission. Perhaps that is why the government has put the debate off rather than having it occur this week as originally scheduled. If the Minister for Social Services will not trust the public with his plans, why should parliament entrust the minister with the power to do as he wishes?
The bill will not take effect until the passing of a subsequent bill which will outline what on earth the government wants to do in the area of charity regulation. For a government which says that is serious about reducing red tape it is striking to read in the explanatory memorandum:
Since stage one does not detail the alternative arrangements, there are no direct impacts that can be quantified as costs and benefits faced by the civil sector. As a result, no indicative costings are provided in this RIS.
So, this is the very definition of a ghost bill. If this bill were on the statute books today it would have been repealed in the bonfire of legislation, because it does nothing.
The problem is that the charities commission does something. The charities commission is strongly supported by the sector. Many charities say how much they appreciate an agency that understands their complexities and helps them to focus on what they do best—helping people. It protects donors and acts as a watchdog against scammers and dodgy charities. Indeed, in a few weeks time the ACNC will host an international charities law regulators forum, celebrating what Australia has achieved. The government claims that the ACNC is a failed model, but countries such as Ireland are looking at introducing regulations to put into place a model like the Australian charities commission, which enjoys broad support from the community.
By contrast, the government's plan to put charities law regulation back into the hands of the Australian Taxation Office received support from just six per cent of the charitable sector—that is how persuasive this government has been with the sector. I call on Minister Andrews to not put the ACNC on the bonfire. Do with the plans to scrap the charities commission what the government has done with its ill-thought-through financial advice legislation—press the pause button, help the charities sector and, if you must repeal ghost acts, make that your bonfire instead.
Pacific Highway
Mr HOGAN (Page) (21:24): On Friday, I had the pleasure of opening a new section of dual carriageway on the Pacific Highway known as Devils Pulpit. The upgrade involved the construction of seven kilometres of dual carriageway situated between the centres of Ballina and Grafton, at a cost of $80 million. There are many reasons, economic and otherwise, why we wanted to complete this section of dual carriageway. One of the main reasons was to reduce fatalities. It has been well proven that dual carriageways reduce fatalities. At the opening on Friday, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr and Mrs Thomas, whose daughter was tragically killed on this section of the road about seven or eight years ago. In a way, they were there to celebrate the opening of this section of road. However, it was a very sobering reminder to me that, while we invest in road upgrades for many reasons, reducing fatalities has to be the primary one. It would be good, at this time, to remind ourselves that fatalities on New South Wales roads have fallen, and have fallen drastically. In fact, fatalities around New South Wales are now at 1930s levels. Again, to meet people who have so tragically been affected by road accidents was very sobering.
The upgrade of the remaining section of this highway is a $7 billion project and the federal government is committing over $5 billion to it. In some ways, I must commend the previous government. The Howard government was the first federal government to start committing serious federal funds to the Pacific Highway, moving towards a fifty-fifty funding split with state governments. The previous government moved towards an eighty-twenty split, which they continued with for many years and then, with the change in state government, they decided to revert to a fifty-fifty split. At the last election, the project was an issue in my electorate and I am very proud of the fact that we, as a coalition, stepped up and said that we would not revert to the fifty-fifty split. We recognised the very important nature of this project and we said that, if elected, we would maintain the 80 per cent federal government funding. We awarded the tender for the Pimlico to Teven bypass in the first few weeks of government, and one of the first things that I did as the newly elected member for Page after the September election was to go with the member for Ballina, Don Page, to Pimlico and turn the first sod for what was a very important part of the road just south of Ballina.
Although fatalities are the most important part of the discussion on roads, we also need to mention the economic benefits of this project. The direct jobs involved in this project go into the thousands—I think it is around 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. You can multiply the numbers employed directly by about two to three times to determine the indirect benefits that it will produce. Once finished, the upgrade will also bring increased tourism and business opportunities. As the Prime Minister has continually said that he wants to be the infrastructure Prime Minister, it is with some sobriety—bearing in mind the primary reason that we are doing this—but also great pride that we are continuing to fund these important infrastructure projects in my electorate. Last Friday was a great day, opening the Devils Pulpit section. The section has experienced a number of fatalities over the last 10 years—it was a very dangerous section of the road—and the duplication has been made a priority over the last few years.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:30 pm.
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: AIR 9000 Phase 5C Replacement Chinook Facilities Project, Townsville, Queensland.
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: Defence Terrestrial Communications Network Facilities and Infrastructure Project.
Mr Shorten to move:
That the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Determination 2014 made under subsections 258(4) and (5) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 on 6 March 2014 and presented to the House on 17 March 2014, be disallowed.
Mr Shorten to move:
That the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme (Income Support Bonus) Repeal Instrument 2014 made under subsections 117(2) and (3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 on 6 March 2014 and presented to the House on 17 March 2014, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr R Mitchell ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Bendigo Electorate: Woodend Winter Arts Festival
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:30): Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the program launch for the Woodend Winter Arts Festival, something I know the Deputy Speaker would be fond of. The Woodend Winter Arts Festival started 10 years ago. Over the June Queen's Birthday long weekend it brings together acclaimed Australian and international talent in music, literature and the arts. It also brings together the community of the stunning Macedon Ranges The result is a world-class showcase in the heart of Victoria's best food and wine region of both vibrant and traditional thought-provoking performances and events.
The Woodend Winter Arts Festival was the brainchild of local arts director Jacqueline Ogeil and the president of the committee, John O'Donnell. The committee was established in 2004 and the festival quickly became one of the hallmark events on the calendar for the arts in our region. The festival is held every year over the long weekend and brings some energy and warmth to a community which otherwise would be shivering in the dead of winter. It attracts over 5,000 visitors to the Macedon Ranges annually and has grown to a program of more than 30 events. The program involves music, such as the classics and jazz, and literature events, as well as a visual arts program. It brings together young and old through a series of free events in the community as well as through some paid events, which help fund the program annually. The festival's classical music program is broadcast annually over ABC Classic FM and also internationally through the European Broadcasting Union, which speaks volumes for the talent in the festival.
This year is a special year, as it celebrates the 10th anniversary of this festival. This year's program is one of the most ambitious yet. It will include opera, a string quartet from Vienna and a leading international cellist from Singapore, as well as a few favourites, including the Italian violinist David Monte. It is a rare opportunity to bring opera to the Macedon Ranges, and I am sure it will be a success.
The Bendigo electorate is home to a number of growing arts professionals, and the festival is one of our local success stories. With the right mix of commercial, public and community investment, our cultural industry will continue to grow. But funding for this festival is an ongoing struggle. Whilst we have the commercial and community investment, what we do not have is public investment. It is time for Regional Arts Victoria and Regional Arts Australia to get behind such fantastic festivals as the Woodend Winter Arts Festival, which, I am sure, this year will be another success.
Hume Electorate: Green Army
Mr TAYLOR ( Hume ) ( 10:33 ): I would like to report on a growing excitement in my electorate about an idea to encourage youth participation and training in the community. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might have heard it mentioned once or twice before. It is called the Green Army. It is only a few months away from kick-off in July, and already on the ground in Hume teams of organisers are ready to swing young people into action. There are no fewer than five Hume Green Army projects to be rolled out, and each is of great importance to the local community in motivating young people to participate and to take on responsibility.
We have a great project around Sutton, Bywong and Womboin, in the southern part of my electorate, bordering the ACT. A Green Army team of about nine people, and a team supervisor under the guidance of the Palerang Council, will be rehabilitating an area known as the Greenways. The Greenways is a unique and well-used network of recreation and conservation trails. The team will work on repairing erosion gullies, improving pedestrian access by creating small pedestrian bridges, revegetating along the Greenways and controlling weeds.
In Goulburn a project team will be improving the ecosystem of the existing Goulburn Wetlands. This will be a collaborative effort between council, as the landowners, and a number of community groups. At Yass there will be ongoing restoration of about two kilometres of Riverbank Park, with the replanting of local plant species and the creation of viewing points, walking tracks, signs and a fitness trail. With several schools within a short walking distance, it will encourage young students to learn about the local river environment. A Green Army project at Picton, in the northern end of my electorate, organised by Wollondilly Shire Council, will continue to restore Stonequarry Creek by planting native species and removing weeds holding up water flows. The fifth project I would like to mention, one with a fantastic name, is the Tussock Tamers in Action project in the Upper Lachlan Shire. Over the past couple of years 180 farming families have participated in local tussock tamer workshops in the shire and 300 families have attended field days. All of this is aimed at reducing the No. 1 problem identified by local Landcare: serrated tussock. I look forward to following the progress of the young team under the guidance of the Upper Lachlan Landcare group.
Youth unemployment is high in parts of my electorate; youth participation in the local community is low. The Green Army program is a fantastic initiative to encourage young people who are looking to participate. An allowance is paid, training is provided and they will be helping to improve the environment. As the program is ongoing, I encourage constituents, via their councils or via community groups, to nominate other worthy projects for subsequent rounds of funding. I know the response from my local communities will continue to be incredibly positive and I look forward to informing the House of the results of this opening round.
Newcastle Electorate: Steel Magnolia Awards
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:36): Last Friday night I had the pleasure of attending the annual Steel Magnolia Awards night in my electorate of Newcastle. This important event recognises steel magnolias—that is, women of courage, strength and hope who have made a significant community contribution in the face of unimaginable adversity. Since 2004 Lifeline Newcastle and Hunter have hosted this award to pay tribute to the amazing women in celebration of their contributions to our community. Each year a group of finalists are recognised at this ceremony and, while each of their stories is unique and their contribution extraordinary, one woman is singled out and awarded the Steel Magnolia Award.
The 2014 Steel Magnolia Award finalists were Gwendalyn Burt, Michelle Davis, Diana Hyett, Susanne Jenkins, Julie Lewis, Tanyia McBride and Lorraine Sandlant. This year Michelle Davis was awarded the Steel Magnolia Award for her tireless work campaigning for road safety. In 2005 Michelle lost her two teenage sons in a car crash in Morpeth, not far from their home in Maitland. In the face of her incredible loss, Michelle wanted to do something to help improve road safety for teenagers and to deliver a positive message of hope for those suffering tragic loss. Michelle joined Sergeant David Collis of New South Wales Highway Patrol, Paul Alexander, a paramedic from the Ambulance Service of NSW, and Simon Thomas, from the New South Wales Police Force, to initiate ROADwhyz, a program that delivers a powerful road safety message to school students and their parents. The ROADwhyz Choice and Consequence program, launched in schools in the Hunter, has expanded to Victoria. It pairs an experienced educator with a police officer, ambulance service person and Highway Patrol representative to deliver a strong road safety message. Michelle was also recognised for her role as a co-founder for the HOPE support group, a group of mutual encouragement and support that believes strongly that in helping others we help ourselves.
At the event we also heard from another amazing woman who has been recognised recently for an outstanding community contribution. Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy was the recipient of the 2013 Gold Walkley Award for her reporting to expose the sexual abuse of children, primarily by Catholic clergy, in Newcastle and the Hunter. Her unrelenting work over seven years, which included more than 350 articles, was instrumental in campaigning for the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Last year McCarthy was recognised by another great Australian woman, Julia Gillard, who, in one of her final acts as Prime Minister, wrote a letter of thanks to McCarthy for her reporting. In that letter the Prime Minister wrote:
Thanks in large measure to your persistence and courage, the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry and the federal Royal Commission will bring truth and healing to the victims of horrendous abuse and betrayal.
I echo the sentiment of former Prime Minister Gillard and share Joanne's belief, which she iterated on Friday night, that we should never remained silent in the face of injustice. (Time expired)
Casey Electorate: Celebrate Mooroolbark Festival
Carlton in Canberra
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (10:39): Last Saturday the Mooroolbark community again hosted the Celebrate Mooroolbark Festival at the Red Earth Park and Mooroolbark Community Centre. It is a wonderful annual event that brings together local schools, businesses, community groups and many others in a low-cost environment with entertainment for people of all ages. Throughout the day there was a parade, a full stage program, roving performers, kids activities, workshops, rides and food stalls. It was a tremendous event.
The hardworking community and a hardworking committee ensures that this event is a success each and every year. I want to pay tribute to the chair of the event, Andrew Lang; to the vice-chairs, Randall Bourchier, Barbara Austin, Liz Ryan; to the secretary, Jean Mitchinson; and to the tireless treasurer, Margaret Goldup, who does so much for the group as well.
Most of the local schools were involved in the parade and involved throughout the day playing music on the stage. I pay tribute to Pembroke Primary School, Bimbadeen Heights Primary School, Gladesville Primary School, Manchester Primary School and the Mount Evelyn Special Development School. Also involved in the parade were Yarra Ranges Scouts and Mooroolbark Girl Guides. For those members here who have young children, they would be pleased to know that renowned children's author Andy Griffiths was there at lunchtime. I pay tribute to him, too, because he spent a good hour signing autographs for all of his young fans that have read his many books, including The 13-Story Treehouse and the like. He was there at a community centre right through lunch.
On a completely separate topic I do want to correct the public record. Second Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you would be aware that last Wednesday night week at our Carlton in Canberra function——where I, along with you, spoke—I made a statement that, of the four of us hosting the event, I was the only member to have actually played for the Carlton Football Club, albeit in the Little League. I have since learned that in fact the Second Deputy Speaker also played in the Little League at about the same time. It is something we have in common. I think what I can say on behalf of both of us is that that time represented the peak of our football career.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): I fully concur. I thank the member for Casey.
Middle East
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:42): Reports of abuse of Palestinian people, including the elderly, women and children by Israeli soldiers should be of concern to all fair-minded people. I accept that there are always two sides to every story. However, the constant stream of allegations of aggression and oppression of the Palestinian people cannot all be dismissed as lies, fabrications or exaggerations. Much of the conflict and suffering appears to be directly associated with the encroachment of Israeli settlements into Palestine. As expected, the reports are rejected by Israeli spokespersons, and the propaganda war between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian voices continues on a daily basis, with each side blaming the other and citing facts to support their claims.
One set of facts that has emerged in the public relations war is indeed interesting, because it comes via an email from pro-Israeli commentator, Peter Wertheim, who, in an effort to rebut comments by US President Obama, refers to an article by Evelyn Gordon which outlines the number of new Israeli settlements in Palestine. The article confirms the extent of Israeli settlement in Palestine in recent years. According to the figures, 38,000 new homes have been built since 1995 with around 16,000 in the last decade. Palestinians claim that these homes have been built on land forcefully taken away from them, depriving them not only of their home but also of their land, which provides them with a livelihood and their water.
Defence of the encroachment by pro-Israeli voices is unconvincing and any resistance by Palestinians to having their homes forcefully taken from them is completely understandable. As US President Obama stated:
Put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own, living their entire lives with a presence of a foreign army that controls the movements, not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents every single day ... It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student's ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home.
Other reports—including the night-time arrest of children, property searches, restrictions on movement and even water supplies—simply cannot all be dismissed as justifiable actions by Israeli authorities. Last month Amnesty International reported that in 2013: 22 Palestinian civilians, of whom at least four were children, were killed in the West Bank and in the last three years at least 261 Palestinians, including 67 children, have been seriously injured by live ammunition fired by Israeli forces in the West Bank. A separate report said two teenage Palestinian soccer players were allegedly shot in the feet to prevent them from ever playing soccer again.
I understand that Alon Liel, former Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has warned of Israel standing at the edge of an apartheid cliff in Palestine. We cannot claim to be a just society if we do not speak out against injustice wherever it occurs. (Time expired)
Science
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:45): I want to take a few moments today to thank the many people who took part in the Science Meets Parliament program last week, and to congratulate and thank Science and Technology Australia on their work in organising the event.
This was the 14th annual Science Meets Parliament. Bringing together more than 200 scientists with parliamentarians from across the spectrum is a huge task, but a very worthwhile one in order to ensure we continue to foster good communications and understanding between the scientific community and government. As chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Science Group, it was a great pleasure to address the dinner last Monday night in the Great Hall. I made a couple of comments during that speech that I would like to put on the record today. Firstly, I believe it is important that parliamentarians of all political persuasions remain open and less partisan when it comes to discussing the nature of scientific debate and opinion. Secondly, as someone with a love of science and a degree in engineering, I always feel a little uneasy when a parliamentarian declares 'the science is settled' as a means of advocating a particular policy. Science is never entirely settled because when questioning of scientific theory stops, so too does our capacity to develop deeper understanding and discover new scientific theories.
Fittingly, last week nominations were opened for the 2014 Prime Minister's Prizes for Science, which include recognition of excellence in teaching for both primary and secondary school teachers. I have contacted all schools in my electorate, asking them to nominate an outstanding science teacher, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. The more we can promote the study of science, the sooner we can stop the decline we have seen over the past two decades when it comes to the study of maths and science in our schools.
Sadly, Australian graduation rates in the mathematical sciences run at only half the OECD average for men and one-third for women. More than 30 per cent of secondary maths classes are taught by staff not trained as maths teachers. And since 1995 there has been a 30 per cent drop in students enrolling in intermediate and advanced maths, which has a flowthrough effect on the supply of graduates, teachers and mathematically literate Australians in industry. This is causing a devastating ripple effect throughout higher education, research and industry. Encouraging our students to study science, of course, begins in our schools.
In concluding today, I extend thanks to both the organisers and the sponsors of Science Meets Parliament. I also reiterate my support for greater communications and understanding between parliament and the scientific community. I commit myself to personally doing all I can to foster closer relationships, and I welcome and encourage all members of this parliament to join the Friends of Science Group.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:48): It is widely understood that changes to the Racial Discrimination Act proposed by this government follow the introduction of section 18C by the Keating government in 1995 and 11 years of successful operation of this law under the previous conservative government led by John Howard. It is also widely understood that this is being contemplated because of the insult and offence felt by one case involving that most valiant tribune of the conservative cause, Mr Andrew Bolt. It must have been a mistake, therefore, that his newspaper decided against appealing Justice Bromberg's decision. Justice Bromberg had made a ruling that under 18C Mr Bolt had offended people.
It is strange that higher courts can often overrule aberrant or adventurous readings of the law, but this decision was not appealed. It does seem to have given the freedom fighters of the Institute of Public Affairs a cause celebre. Their mission, which, in the words of the Mission Impossible brief, they have chosen to accept, is to liberate the nation from 'Bolt Laws'. In fact, it is only one occasion of 1,268 cases where nearly 500 issues of racial vilification were dealt with by conciliation. So the government is making a decision to move on the basis of one apparently aberrant ruling, while 1,268 cases have had a completely different outcome.
A wise government would think very carefully about sweeping away the widely accepted section 18C. This has been very clear to Indigenous leaders, such as Warren Mundine. There are some courageous members of the government, whom I would like to single out, who also raised this issue, apparently: the member for Reid, Craig Laundy and the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt. I believe there are others.
The widespread critique of section 18C that automatically if someone is offended or humiliated the law will find for them is completely wrong. In fact, Justice Drummond noted, in relation to section 18C: '… whether an act contravenes the section is not governed by the impact the act is subjectively perceived to have by a complainant'; instead, as the Attorney-General said when introducing the Racial Hatred Act in 1994, section 18C:
… requires an objective test to be applied … so that community standards to behaviour rather than the subjective views of the complainant are taken into account.
Capricornia Electorate: Pineapples
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (10:51): The Capricorn Coast's booming pineapple industry is set to become the talk of Parliament House this week. Tomorrow, I will distribute 300 Capricorn Coast pineapples—one to every MP and senator. The campaign is dubbed Pines for Parliament and aims to showcase the diversity of my electorate of Capricornia. We are world leaders in coal and beef production, crocodile farming and intellectual research, through CQUniversity. But you may not realise that Capricornia is a key player in Australia's pineapple industry. The 300 pineapples delivered to Parliament House are supplied by Tropical Pineapples. Tropical Pineapples has its headquarters in Yeppoon and supplies 45 per cent of the nation's demand for fresh pines. Up to 30 per cent of these are grown around Yeppoon itself.
As a pineapple packing and pine marketing company, Tropical Pineapples supports 22 Queensland farms. My Pines for Parliament campaign is designed to highlight the diversity of Capricornia's agricultural sectors at a national level, bring key local industries to the attention of federal politicians, provide media exposure to the region's diversity and highlight the importance of the local pineapple industry.
This year, Tropical Pineapples launched a new Yeppoon Pineapple brand. Tropical Pineapples' marketing manager, Joe Craggs, tells me the new brand is a selection of some of the best fruit from the Central Queensland region. It is grown on the northerly slopes of selected farms to utilise all of nature's most favourable assets. This creates Yeppoon pineapples that are perfect in size, shape and most importantly flavour. Pineapples from Yeppoon have been famous for years.
Like produce in France, the new brand celebrates the provenance of Yeppoon pines and promotes the region's excellent growing conditions. The local pineapple industry is concerned about the disease risk posed by the importation of fresh pineapples from overseas. The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport have had an inquiry underway into the effect on Australian pineapple growers of importing fresh pineapple from Malaysia. They are expected to hand down a report on 31 March. Importantly, you should know that 100 grams of fresh Australian pineapple provides your total average daily intake of Vitamin C.
Lalor Electorate: Western Chances
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:54): I rise today to speak about an organisation in Melbourne's west called Western Chances. Western Chances is a not-for-profit that seeks to help young people from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve their educational goals in life. In my time as a teacher and principal I had the privilege of identifying students and putting them forward for Western Chances scholarships, and one of the highlights of the school year was attending the scholarship recipient announcement evenings. On 12 March I had the privilege of again attending—this time as the member for Lalor. It was a grand evening of celebration for the 2014 recipients and for the organisation.
Western Chances was founded by Terry Bracks in 2003. Terry worked as a teacher in Melbourne's west and in this place for Barry Jones and Julia Gillard, and in her time in schools and in the electorate she saw all too often talented students with the will to work hard falling through the cracks because of their financial circumstances. Western Chances identifies these young people with the help of those at the education coalface—the teachers, tutors, lecturers and principals who are in a unique position to identify eligible candidates.
Mimi Huynh, a daughter of refugees, first received support in year 11 in 2007 and was supported all the way through her education to 2013. Mimi recently wrote to say thank you and to tell us she has won a scholarship to Vietnam, has published a research paper, and has finally graduated and is now a dentist working in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Stephanie Tedesco was similarly supported in years 11 and 12. She spoke at this year's event and is studying medicine at Monash. There are countless more examples of how young people throughout Melbourne's west have been supported by Western Chances. In just 11 years, the organisation has gone from strength to strength and has now awarded over 3,400 scholarships to over 1,900 students. They have been able to support these young people to the tune of over $2.4 million. Western Chances works with schools, businesses and private donors, and has an extended network of partners—far too many to mention by name.
Western Chances is run by an extraordinary team headed by CEO Rhyll Dorrington, and is overseen by the evergreen Terry Bracks as chair of the board. Its esteemed patron is the Hon. Frank Vincent AO QC. Western Chances is an outstanding example of how our community pull together and look after each other.
Lindsay Electorate: Bikers Against Child Abuse
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (10:56): I would like to bring the attention of the House to a community organisation I had the pleasure of meeting at the weekend—the Bikers Against Child Abuse, or BACA. This international organisation of bikers stands united to protect and empower children who have been impacted by sexual or physical abuse. Their mission statement says:
Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA) exists with the intent to create a safer environment for abused children. We exist as a body of Bikers to empower children to not feel afraid of the world in which they live. We stand ready to lend support to our wounded friends by involving them with an established, united organization.
Through the Bikers Against Child Abuse group vulnerable and abused children have a family for life. They learn empowerment and self-respect through the 'tough' yet reliable bikie culture which builds and strengthens their confidence. Bikers Against Child Abuse are the personal friends of the child, and can be most valuable in helping vulnerable children in confronting and intimidating circumstances such as providing police statements and attending court proceedings in circumstances where they may have to confront their abuser or even recount the difficult details of their abuse. Empowering children to stand up and helping them to find their confidence in often confronting and intimidating circumstances is indeed a noble act, and that is what makes the Bikers Against Child Abuse movement so effective and powerful.
In 2013 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that rates of substantiated child abuse and neglect had risen from 31,500 to 37,800. Sadly, Indigenous children are at a higher risk—they are almost eight times more likely to be exposed to substantiated abuse or neglect. As Western Sydney is home to the largest Indigenous population in Australia, this is of specific concern to the people I represent in the electorate of Lindsay. On Saturday I had the great pleasure of riding with the Bikers Against Child Abuse Penrith charter. Because of what I saw firsthand I can absolutely vouch for how wonderful this organisation is. I would like to thank the local charter and New South Wales bikers and I also thank 'Sparkles' for taking me on the back of her trike, not to mention the rest of the road crew—'Lefty', 'Moose', 'Goose' and 'Sparky'—and 'Lucky', 'Preacher' and 'Tower', who supported the team on the day. The reason they all have code names is that they work in the space of child abuse—it is to protect both the bikers and the children. I thank the House and I really thank Bikers Against Child Abuse.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Human Rights: Sri Lanka
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:00): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) Australia's co-sponsorship of the 2012 United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council resolution calling on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka and to take credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans;
(b) Australia's co-sponsorship of the 2013 United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council resolution expressing concern at continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, and reiterating the call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the Commission's recommendations and to fulfil its commitment to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law;
(c) reports of continuing violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society and journalists, threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, and a rapid rise in violence and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief in Sri Lanka; and
(d) the conclusion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that national mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice in Sri Lanka, and her recommendation that the Human Rights Council establish an international inquiry mechanism to further investigate the alleged violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law and monitor any domestic accountability processes; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) maintain Australia's strong record of support for human rights at the 25th session of the Human Rights Council; and
(b) join with the United Kingdom, United States of America and other co-sponsoring nations and commit the Australian Government to the strongest possible support for draft Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/25/L.1.
In moving this motion I want to focus on Australia's strong record of supporting human rights and ensuring justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation. I would like to acknowledge the work of the shadow foreign minister, the member for Sydney, for her support of this motion and the commitment to human rights around the world and indeed of Australian governments of all political persuasions who have played their part in that process over the decades.
Three weeks ago I was joined by members of this parliament from all sides of politics—Labor, Liberal, the Greens, minor parties and independents—to discuss human rights in Sri Lanka with visiting Tamil National Alliance MP Mr MA Sumanthiran. I was extremely pleased to see such broad representation from Australia's parliament so present, something which highlights that this is an issue which indeed crosses political boundaries, and I note the advocacy of many members of the government on this issue, particularly the member for Reid.
This is a motion I have particularly pursued because my electorate of Greenway is home to a large Sri Lankan population. Many have fled persecution, had family members flee during the civil war or still have family living in an unreconciled homeland. Ultimate reconciliation of Sri Lanka and active accountability processes to acknowledge the injustices that were, and still are, occurring are therefore major concerns.
For some time now I have been on the record supporting the cause of human rights in Sri Lanka and accountability for atrocities committed by all sides in that conflict. I wish to stress, Deputy Speaker, that this is about reconciliation in terms of the acts of all sides of the conflict. I made this point to former foreign minister Bob Carr and expressed my preference for Australia to reconsider its involvement in the recent CHOGM event, but I was told of Australia's preference for engagement over isolation—a perfectly valid preference, which I can respect. I made similar representations to the current foreign minister and I noted publicly that, while this was a decision consistent with Labor in office, my hope was that human rights would continue to be on Australia's agenda. So, this is now a process of engagement and, as such, I urge the Australian government to maintain Australia's strong record for the support of human rights in Sri Lanka at the upcoming 25th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
I also want to bring to the attention of the parliament that today a letter has gone to the Prime Minister from a number of eminent Australians across the political divide, including the Hon. John Dowd AO, QC, former New South Wales Attorney-General; the Hon. Gareth Evans; Malcolm Fraser; Owen Harries, the former Australian Ambassador to UNESCO; Geoffrey Robertson QC; and Gordon Weiss, the Adjunct Professor at Griffith University and founding adviser and consultant expert to the International Crimes Evidence Project. I quote one of the paragraphs in their letter:
This resolution is of real relevance to all citizens of Sri Lanka. Any credible investigation into violations committed by both sides would provide all Sri Lankan communities the space and environment to come to terms with crimes committed in their respective names. The Australian Government must support this resolution, as without meaningful truth, justice and accountability for the alleged crimes committed during the war, there will be no genuine opportunity to set Sri Lanka on the path to reconciliation and lasting peace.
The 2012 UN General Assembly Human Rights Council resolution called upon the government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to take credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation is achieved for all Sri Lankans. Similarly, the 2013 UN General Assembly Human Rights Council resolution expressed concern over the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. It called upon the government to implement the commission's recommendations for 2012 and to fulfil its commitment to investigate all allegations of violations of human rights law. I note that Australia was, rightly, a co-sponsor for both the 2012 and 2013 resolutions.
This motion calls upon the Australian government to honour our strong and proud record of support for human rights at the upcoming 25th session of the Human Rights Council. I note that the resolution entitled 'Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka' does recognise that some progress has been made in this respect. It calls upon the Sri Lankan government to continue to do this. It also reiterates that it take all necessary steps to fulfil its obligations under the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.
I believe that accountability and transparency are crucial for reconciliation to be achieved in Sri Lanka. An important step towards this is an investigation into the atrocities performed by all sides during the civil war. The harrowing reports of further violence and violation of rights must be dealt with in a transparent and in-depth manner in order for genuine reconciliation to take place. I represent, as I said, a large population of people from a Sri Lankan homeland and they want nothing more than reconciliation in their homeland. I believe the Australian government should use this as a platform to promote it.
Ms Hall: I second the motion.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (11:05): The coalition government is committed to international standards of human rights and takes seriously all allegations of abuse. As someone who served on Australia's initial deployments to Afghanistan and southern Iraq, and as a senior public servant managing our international defence relationships, I confirm that these issues are front of mind for our senior military officers and bureaucrats. I acknowledge the ongoing human rights concerns in Sri Lanka, on both sides of the civil conflict that ended in May 2009. I know that members of this House aspire to genuine reconciliation and a less violent future for the people of Sri Lanka.
As history has repeatedly proven, governments are at the heart of genuine reconciliation. The Sri Lankan government is no different, and the terrible events on both sides of the conflict must be explored. That includes accountability for alleged crimes, as the member for Greenway says, by both sides of that conflict, both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan government. We further this aspiration by engaging the government of Sri Lanka, not isolating it. My career as a senior military officer and senior public servant working within the international system has repeatedly reinforced the value of working with states in relation to human rights, not shouting at them from the sidelines.
Instead of finger-pointing from a distance, Australia raises issues of human rights directly with Sri Lanka's government and we remain in regular contact with political, official and community representatives on Sri Lankan issues here in Australia. Just a few weeks ago, on 5 March, foreign minister Bishop met Mr M.A. Sumanthiran, of the Tamil National Alliance, to hear his views. In the margins of CHOGM in Colombo last November, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Bishop raised human rights at the most senior levels of the Sri Lankan government. And in relation to our participation in CHOGM in Colombo, Bob Carr got that call absolutely right. Our high commission in Colombo regularly does the same, including, most recently, with the secretary of Sri Lanka's Foreign Ministry about the 16 March arrest of Father Praveen and Ruki Fernando. We are very pleased to see that they have since been released.
We continue at a variety of levels to urge the Sri Lankan government to give the highest priority to implementing the recommendations of its Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission process. As for co-sponsorship of the US-led resolution on Sri Lanka, this decision, as with all good policy decisions, will be based on due consideration of the final text and an evidence-based consideration of all factors. It is important to acknowledge the Sri Lankan government's progress on resettlement of internally displaced persons, de-mining and infrastructure development in the war-ravaged north and east. I note that Australia has provided an aid contribution for de-mining and reconstruction of housing and schools in these areas in the north and east of the country.
The September 2013 Northern Province Council election, which was won by the Tamil National Alliance, was an important step forward. A political settlement between the central government and the Tamil community is critical for reconciliation. Properly implemented, Sri Lanka's commission of inquiry on disappearances which was established late last year will also be an important contributor to accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Transparency, inclusivity and early progress with concrete results will be key for such a large and difficult undertaking.
So at every level of our polity and of our bureaucracy, our engagement with countries like Sri Lanka both bilaterally and in multilateral forums assists in taking that process of reconciliation forward, and we do that most effectively when we participate. Throughout my career I have found that furthering the cause of good governance, furthering the cause of strengthened institutional structures in countries in our region, is best accomplished from within than without. I know that I join every member of this House in wishing the Sri Lankan people the reconciliation and brighter future they deserve.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:10): I rise today to speak in support of reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka and I commend my colleague the member for Greenway on her motion. On a visit to Sri Lanka last year the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights observed that after a vicious and debilitating 27-year conflict the fighting is over but suffering is not. The high commissioner has consistently reiterated the need for a full, transparent and impartial investigation into a conflict that saw numerous war crimes and other violations committed by both sides.
The situation in Sri Lanka following the decades long war has been the subject of Human Rights Council resolutions in 2012 and 2013 and in both instances, in 2012 and 2013, Australia supported the Human Rights Council resolutions. In these resolutions the United Nations urged the government of Sri Lanka to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. The commission's recommendations highlight the need to credibly investigate allegations of extrajudicial killings and disappearances; demilitarise the north of Sri Lanka; implement land dispute resolution mechanisms; re-evaluate detention policies; strengthen civil institutions; reach a settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces; promote and protect freedom of expression; and, finally, enact rule of law reforms.
This week the UN Human Rights Council will again consider a report on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka including through an independent international investigation into violations and abuses of human rights by both parties in Sri Lanka. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has acknowledged the progress made by the government of Sri Lanka since 2009 in relation to de-mining, resettlement and reconstruction and rehabilitation. The high commissioner has also welcomed the elections to the Northern Provincial Council in 2013. Likewise, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons also acknowledged what he described as the government's impressive strides in rebuilding.
But the high commissioner has also observed that physical reconstruction alone will not bring reconciliation, dignity and lasting peace for all citizens of Sri Lanka. Her report concludes that national mechanisms have not yet been successful in establishing the truth and achieving justice. Against this background, the high commissioner recommends the establishment of an independent international inquiry mechanism which would contribute to establishing the truth where domestic inquiry mechanisms have failed.
Our call on the Australian government to support the draft resolution before the Human Rights Council is with a view to preventing recurrence of violations and abuses and puts us in company with all of our usual allies when it comes to foreign affairs decision making. In line with the position taken by the Australian government in 2012 and 2013, the motion before the council supports the entitlement of all Sri Lankans to the full enjoyment of their human rights regardless of religion, belief or ethnicity in a peaceful and unified country.
I want to turn just briefly in the time I have remaining to the letter that has been sent to the Prime Minister from a range of eminent Australians suggesting that Australia ought support the US-sponsored UN resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. I think this letter shows that the Australian government has a balanced position, acknowledging that there were wrongs on both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict and seeking clarification and enlightenment that is impartial and focused on the facts. This letter shows that the support for that position is truly bipartisan, with the eminent Australians including John Dowd; Gareth Evans; Malcolm Fraser; Owen Harries, the former Australian ambassador to UNESCO and visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy; Geoffrey Robertson; and Gordon Weiss, an adjunct professor at Griffith University who is the founding adviser and consultant expert to the International Crimes Evidence Project, a former UN spokesperson and author. All of these eminent citizens are calling, as we do today, for Australia to support the US sponsored UN resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights.
Dr STONE (Murray) (11:15): This motion calls, amongst other things, for the Australian government to 'maintain Australia's strong record of support for human rights at the 25th session of the Human Rights Council'. Of course we will. Australia is pre-eminent in supporting human rights. We have a country with a culture that acknowledges the oppressed and does its utmost to ensure that if there is anywhere in the world that needs peacekeeping, whether it is in our near neighbourhood or further afield, Australia is there. So of course we will continue to give strong support to human rights at the 25th session of the Human Rights Council. But the motion goes on to say we should:
… join with the United Kingdom, United States of America and other co-sponsoring nations and commit the Australian Government to the strongest possible support for draft Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/25/L.1.
Well, we have not as yet seen the final text of that resolution and, like all governments and all sensible minded persons, when we do see the final text then we will decide our position.
I do welcome this motion because it is about a country that is near and dear to the hearts of Australians. We long ago drew close to the Commonwealth country of Ceylon. The name of its capital city, Colombo, will forever be celebrated in one of our earliest and most successful foreign aid ventures, the Colombo Plan. Many of today's most influential workers in government and business throughout our near region went through that Colombo Plan many years ago.
The modern Sri Lanka has just come through 30 years of a most bloody civil war, a most difficult time for them when the country was in turmoil. They had extraordinary deprivation and destruction, and the infrastructure, particularly in the north, was decimated. I had the privilege of going there recently at the invitation of the Sri Lankan government. We went up to the north and I was shocked to see the complete destruction of what was once a marvellous irrigation system for rice growing. It was completely destroyed as a result of the 30 years of war. When we flew over the forest we could see wild cattle which were once domestic animals and very important to local agribusiness, but there they were wild in the forest. We went to Jaffna and spoke with the military and the civil service before going on to the camps. You can no longer call them camps of internment, because the gates are all open, but a lot of the population, particularly the women and children, go back there at night to have a meal. It is where their children go to school and they get health services and where they are working from to re-establish the infrastructure, particularly in the north.
The Australian government has helped build schools in that area. We visited one very big new primary school and I must say that the young children lining up, many with bare feet and standing in burning hot sand, showed real perseverance. I felt very anxious that we should walk past them quickly so they could move into the shade. These young children were thirsting for knowledge and their parents were so anxious that they restore the educational opportunity they had been deprived of over the 30 years of war.
Sri Lanka is a country that has a long history as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multilingual society. It has been a practising democracy for a very long time and has had universal adult franchise since 1931. It is a country which now looks to its democratic roots, including having Tamils represented in the parliament. I met a number of these Tamil parliamentary representatives. We have to understand that Sri Lanka will require a long period of rehabilitation and re-establishment of infrastructure. We stand by all that Sri Lanka is trying to do to bring about restitution and reconciliation amongst its individuals.
We certainly also ask that they implement fully the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka, and take credible and independent actions to ensure that there is justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.
I heard that sentiment expressed again and again when I was in Sri Lanka just recently. I think we have to acknowledge the enormous difficulties for a country re-establishing after such a bitter time. I do acknowledge that the diaspora, particularly those in Australia, are anxious to see that the country moves forward. I strongly support a strong, democratic future for Sri Lanka.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:20): I rise in support of the resolution. At the outset, while I think we all recognise that we might have different opinions, these resolutions are extraordinarily hard. They are hard on two counts: one is that, of themselves, dealing with the matters at the heart of this is very tough because of what has been felt and experienced by people, particularly in Sri Lanka. The other element that makes this difficult for Australians broadly is to appreciate that we have savoured and long protected a climate of peace and it is difficult to reconcile in our own minds those events that happened in other parts of the globe that we would never imagine and would never want to have visited on us here in this nation.
However, they do happen, and Australia has played a role in times past—a very productive role—in being able to be promoters of peace, not just by word but by deed. I think our principal role has been helping in our region—for example, Cambodia, at the tail end of its time of terrible things occurring within its boundaries. We were able to play a very important role in bringing peace there, and we should be looking to do likewise using our role here in being able to achieve that.
Australia has a lot to be proud of when you look at the fact that we have been able to become home after World War II to seven million new citizens, some of whom have been drawn from parts of the world that have been bedevilled by conflict, and have been able to make a country that others look and aspire to in terms of being able to create much more harmonious relationships within borders.
While some may not necessarily agree that we should involve ourselves in these matters, I think, as I have said, that it is important to do so. I have a community that is largely built from people of a Tamil background, who I am proud to call friends. I also have a lot of Sinhalese in my community, and they likewise feel very strongly about this as well. There have been, as has been acknowledged, terrible acts committed in Sri Lanka, and while they have occurred through the path of this conflict over many years I think a lot of people recognise that the Tamils bore a huge load of pain at the tail end of the conflict in 2009.
While there have been a lot of divisions that have held Sri Lanka back from being what it could be as a nation, I think the unity that does exist for the common ground is that people recognise that those on either side who strayed beyond the boundaries of what would be considered humanity should feel the arm of justice reach them, and that they are held accountable for terrible acts. That is what needs to happen.
We cannot see Sri Lanka become the country it can be and we cannot find a way to combine the ambitions of both Sinhalese and Tamils without finding a way to hold accountable those who went beyond what would be considered humane. In many ways that is why we have had the UN focus, to try to encourage that justice to occur. Justice should not be viewed as a vehicle for vengeance, because it will ultimately fail if it is that. But, as I said, justice is important if we want to combine the ambitions of the Sinhalese and the Tamils to build something that all Sri Lankans can be proud of in their country.
And so in 2012 and 2013 we have had Australia supporting Human Rights Council resolutions that have urged the government of Sri Lanka to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka—principally to highlight the need to investigate credibly allegations of extrajudicial killings and disappearances, calling for demilitarisation of the north and finding ways to resolve, amongst other things, land disputes. These things are critical if we are to see people being able to join concretely and ensure that Sri Lanka can move ahead and prosper.
If there are elements of doubt about what has occurred and those ill feelings that exist and continue to exist amongst both sides, but particularly those terrible things that were visited upon the Tamils, Sri Lanka cannot conceivably believe that improvements to physical infrastructure alone, for example, can bring people together. What will bring people together is being able to have a sense that those who committed wrong have been brought to justice, an acknowledgement of that hurt and a commitment to work together to ensure that Sri Lanka can move forward concretely.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (11:15): As I rise today to speak on this motion I wish to emphasise from the outset that this government takes seriously all allegations of human rights violations and international crimes and, as you will appreciate further in a moment, this is the government's approach when it comes to human rights concerns involving Sri Lanka. We recognise that there are ongoing human rights concerns in Sri Lanka.
As speakers earlier have noted, it was only a few years that ago that Sri Lanka was engulfed in civil conflict, and we acknowledge that there are still ongoing issues of accountability and reconciliation. That is why it is important that a constructive approach is taken by all parties to any UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka. Any resolution must be aimed at assisting the process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka. As Labor and the Greens well know, we have yet to receive the final text of the resolution. When we do receive the final text, we will carefully consider whether to co-sponsor a US-led resolution. We will make a decision after giving due consideration to the final text and balancing all of the issues; we will not be pushed into a position or be rushed into making decision by Labor or the Greens. We want to assist Sri Lanka to make genuine progress on human rights, accountability and reconciliation—all of which requires the cooperation of the Sri Lankan government.
This government wants to see the allegations of serious international crimes, committed by both sides during Sri Lanka's bloody civil war, independently investigated and transparently prosecuted. Pursuing those responsible for these terrible events and working towards reconciliation is clearly vital for Sri Lanka. The government has consistently and directly raised these issues with the Sri Lankan government and urged it to facilitate independent and transparent investigations.
We also have a regular dialogue with other political, official and community representatives on Sri Lanka related issues here in Australia. As recently as 5 March, our foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop, met with Mr MA Sumanthiran, from the Tamil National Alliance, to discuss the resolution and the situation in Sri Lanka more broadly. On the margins of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last November, PM Abbott and Ms Bishop both raised human rights issues at the most senior levels of the Sri Lankan government. Our high commission in Colombo regularly raises human rights issues, including registering our concern at the 16 March arrest of Father Praveen and Ruki Fernando in northern Sri Lanka, whom we were pleased to see subsequently released.
Both our foreign minister and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, have an appreciation and understanding of the on-the-ground situation in Sri Lanka, having visited the country in February last year. At every opportunity our government engages with the Sri Lankan government to help advance progress on human rights and accountability. It is this approach, rather than one that seeks to isolate the Sri Lankan government, that we consider will ultimately achieve real progress in addressing human rights concerns. It is an approach that we will continue to take.
We acknowledge that progress has been limited in some areas, such as in implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, the LLRC, which we have pressed upon the Sri Lankan government should be implemented with great urgency. In other areas, progress is being made, such as with the resettlement of internally displaced persons; de-mining; and infrastructure development in the north and east of the country, hard hit by the civil conflict as well as the September 2013 Northern Province council election.
Australia will continue to encourage the Sri Lankan government to build on this progress and to take the further necessary steps towards addressing human rights concerns in that country.
Debate adjourned.
M1-M2 Link
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) commends the Government for fulfilling the promise it took to the people at the last federal election with the announcement of the $3 billion M1-M2 Link, 'NorthConnex';
(2) notes that:
(a) investment in infrastructure is a crucial component for economic growth; and
(b) the Government:
(i) is delivering on its commitment to build the M1-M2 Link; and
(ii) gives credit to the New South Wales Government and Transurban for their role in this development; and
(3) recognises:
(a) that the M1-M2 Link is a greatly needed piece of infrastructure and is the missing link in Sydney's transport system;
(b) the benefits that the link will provide in reducing travel time, traffic congestion and pollution, and providing safer roads; and
(c) that this infrastructure will not only benefit the people of North-West Sydney and the central coast, but will have a flow on effect to all areas of Sydney.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:30): I move:
That all words after "Government" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"for not withdrawing the inter-governmental agreement finalised between the former Australian Government and New South Wales Government for funding of the link between the renamed M1 and M2 in Sydney on 21 June 2013 and maintaining the $405 million federal funding allocated in the 2013 budget;
(2) notes that:
(a) investment in infrastructure is a crucial component for economic growth; and
(b) the Government:
(i) is continuing the former Government’s commitment to build the M1-M2 Link; and
(ii) gives credit to the New South Wales Government and Transurban for their role in this development; and
(c) the former Government included the full funding for the federal funding of this project in the 2013 budget and that this investment began to flow in the 2012-2013 financial year; and
(3) recognises:
(a) that the M1-M2 Link is a greatly needed piece of infrastructure and is the missing link in Sydney’s transport system;
(b) the benefits that the link will provide in reducing travel time, traffic congestion and pollution, and providing safer roads; and
(c) that this infrastructure will not only benefit the people of North-West Sydney and the central coast, but will have a flow on effect to all areas of Sydney."
I move this amendment to put some facts into the motion that was moved by the member for Berowra. He is of course the Father of the House, having been here longer than any other member of parliament, but shows himself in this motion to be the Rip Van Winkle of Australian politics. He slept through the 12 years of the Howard government, when there was no progress on this vital link in Sydney, and slept through the former, Labor government finalising the agreement between the New South Wales government, the federal government and Transurban to make sure this project became a reality.
We did that by including in our earlier budgets $150 million towards the project. There was $150 million for planning, a fact acknowledged by Mr Ruddock, the member for Berowra, when he raised these issues in parliament as far back as in 2009. But he knows that the Howard government talked a lot about infrastructure but did not do anything about it. Their total contribution to infrastructure investment in Sydney was $300 million during 12 long years of neglect.
It is no wonder that that sort of record led Australia to be ranked 20th out of 25 countries in the OECD for investment in infrastructure in 2007, when I was sworn in as the minister for infrastructure. We know that today Australia is ranked first—first in 2012, first in 2011—amongst all the industrialised countries, and that was recognised globally. It is also recognised by the commitments that we made in government, including finalising the agreement. On 21 June of last year, I signed the final intergovernmental agreement between the Australian government and the New South Wales government on the F3 to M2 link. There was evidence of it—
Mr Albanese holding up pictures—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! The use of props—
Mr ALBANESE: in the party room of the coalition, in Macquarie Street in Sydney. You can see it there on this picture, Mr Deputy Speaker, with former premiers Nick Greiner and John Fahey in the background. There were TV cameras there that day; there was a media conference. But the member for Berowra and other members of the Abbott government like to pretend—a bit like after the French Revolution, when 1792 was designated year 1—that history began in September last year.
It is as if it were the beginning of year 1 in September last year, because we met with Transurban. I met with the Transurban board. Indeed, I also met with the member for Berowra, and I am surprised by how political he has been with this motion that he is moving, pretending that history began in September last year. I met with him, and I acknowledge the fact that he has been a supporter of this project for a long time. The problem is that he could never actually deliver it despite being a senior cabinet minister in the Howard government during those 12 long years.
Indeed, the funding commenced as a result of the signing of the intergovernmental agreement on 21 June. The funding commenced in the 2012-13 financial year, so this is the second year of funding that we are seeing right now. Why is that the case? Because this is a great project. It is a great project that will eliminate 21 sets of traffic lights between the Central Coast and the city of Sydney. It is great news for road freight operators and for commuters. It is nation building in the grand Labor tradition, and I am very pleased that that agreement was delivered on the watch of the federal Labor government, in the fine tradition which the federal Labor Party has.
Of course, they have changed the name to NorthConnex, but it is exactly the same project that was signed off last March, involving the same amount of money, the same deal with the state government: $405 million from each level of government. And yet the original motion that was before the House laughingly purported to suggest that this was fulfilling the promise that the now government took to the people at the last federal election. I say to the member for Berowra: it was deal done, game over, delivered, on 21 June 2013. Indeed, in the second year of funding flowing from the Commonwealth government for this project, it is quite remarkable to suggest that this was the beginning of the project. But of course—
Government members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Well, the clown opposite does not understand that—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw that.
Mr ALBANESE: I withdraw. He does not understand the fact that there was $405 million fully allocated—the department will know that that is the case; indeed, I in good faith sat down with the member for Berowra in my office and got him, along with others, to lobby the New South Wales government to make sure that they put up their fair share—just as the $195 million allocated for the upgrade of projects for the F3, fully allocated in the Nation Building Program, was also included in the 2013 budget. Indeed, when we made the budget, we took $5 million of savings to change it from $400 million to $405 million as a result of a request from Minister Gay, in New South Wales, to make sure that we had $5 million in 2012-13.
But it is not surprising that those opposite are embarrassed by their performance when it comes to infrastructure. Today we have The Daily Telegraph splash on page 1 that they are setting up a committee to look at infrastructure. They are setting up a committee, but that gets a splash, because of course they have form on this. Not only did they leave Australia ranked 20th out of 25 countries in the OECD, but the last time they were in office they cut $2 billion in road funding from their first budget. Public investment in infrastructure as a proportion of national income plunged 20 per cent from the level it was in the Keating era.
This is a vital project for Sydney. It is a vital project that I was very pleased to support, and of course it was included in the budget papers along with the Cross River Rail and the Melbourne Metro because it was also a part of the innovative package that we had in making sure that we had private sector financing for this project. We sat down and organised matters to ensure that we promoted not just government investment but private sector investment in infrastructure.
Those opposite talked about it and did nothing about it when they were in government last time. They have contributed absolutely nothing, except a press conference. That is their contribution this time around. Rip Van Winkle over there slept through the Howard government and continues to ensure they try to evade debate on this issue. I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr Nikolic: I rise on a point of order. The member opposite has used unparliamentary terms, and I notice colleagues have used the same terms. I ask him to withdraw.
Mr Albanese: There was nothing unparliamentary.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Grayndler to withdraw to assist the House.
Mr Albanese: No, I said nothing unparliamentary.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (11:41): I commend the government for the announcement of the M1-M2 Link, or NorthConnex, as it is now known. I also commend the member for Berowra for moving this motion. It is a great example of the coalition fulfilling a promise we took to the people of the Central Coast at the last federal election, and it is part of our nationwide major roads blueprint.
Lend Lease and Bouygues, who are joining forces with Transurban, are partnering with the New South Wales and federal governments to deliver some of Australia's biggest transport and infrastructure projects, which will deliver real benefits for the people of the Central Coast and for the people of New South Wales. The federal and New South Wales governments will each contribute $405 million toward the $3 billion project.
As a candidate for the seat of Robertson at the 2013 federal election, I fought alongside Karen McNamara, now the member for Dobell, along with other Coalition MPs, in the Missing Link Action Network. I have used the F3, now called the Ml, for many years, including to commute to work on a daily basis. I have experienced the delays and frustrations of congestion, traffic lights and queuing to get to the city. It can be a tough commute. The day begins before the sun rises with the winding drive up Kariong Hill, and ends after dark, often after family dinner time and sometimes after the kids have gone to bed. It has an impact after a while. Although I am privileged to live and work locally now, my husband Chris still heads to Mascot every working day, and he reminds me often of the need to cut travel times to Sydney from the ever-growing region of the Central Coast. It is for these and many other reasons that the M1-M2 missing link has the potential to be the single most important road connection for the people of Robertson.
It has been talked about for decades. But taxpayers just want government to get on with building the transport networks our nation so desperately needs. Under the former Labor government, projects were often announced—and we heard a little bit about this earlier—but Labor has a strong track record of announcing projects but not actually delivering them. Unlike the former Labor government, we will deliver on our promises instead of just talking about them.
NorthConnex will be one of the roads of the 21st century that shows why infrastructure will be a hallmark of this coalition government. The Prime Minister said that as a government we are working with every fibre of our being, every waking moment, to try to ensure we build the infrastructure that Australia needs. This is a concrete step towards building this missing link.
We can now say that NorthConnex is expected to be completed in 2019, with construction on the project to begin next year. NorthConnex will include the construction of a nine-kilometre-long twin tunnel connecting the M1 and M2. It will be a tolled motorway linking the M1 Pacific Motorway at Wahroonga to the Hills M2 Motorway at West Pennant Hills. As part of the future-proofing of NorthConnex, the motorway will also be designed and constructed to allow direct connections to be built to the M2 east and to enable a move to three lanes each way in the future if required. Based on forecast traffic figures, I understand these connections may not be required for a few years, but it shows just how this project will deliver for the future.
Crucially, the tunnel is expected to remove up to 5,000 trucks off Sydney's roads. One of these roads is Pennant Hills Road—not an artery in my electorate, but one that is well known to all commuters from the coast. It is consistently slow and heavily trafficked. Over 10,000 trucks each day are forced onto Pennant Hills Road due to the absence of a motorway-grade link. NorthConnex changes all that. This project boosts the efficacy of freight movements and improves safety, air quality and noise levels for residents and businesses impacted by this corridor.
NorthConnex will make it possible for commuters and freight trucks to bypass more than 20 sets of traffic lights. It will also give vehicles travelling by road from Newcastle to Canberra and Melbourne the ability to reach their destinations without encountering a single traffic light. For the people of the Central Coast, this will mean shorter commuting times of up to 15 minutes. This will bring real relief for the thousands of families in my electorate. With more than 30,000 local residents leaving the Central Coast every day for work, that is 15 minutes each way that has a daily and direct effect on families.
My commitment to the people of my electorate of Robertson is to fight for a future where more choice and more opportunity abound. I am passionate about making sure the experience of my husband, whose round-trip commute takes over four hours a day, does not have to be the future experience of my young family or the future experience of tens of thousands of other families on the coast. NorthConnex is part of that solution. We are getting on with delivering this vital project as we deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century for the Central Coast.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:46): I rise today to speak on the private members' motion moved by the member for Berowra regarding the M1-M2 link, and to support the member for Grayndler's amendment. I agree that the coalition should be commended for fulfilling a promise they took to the election. We have seen them break commitment after commitment to the Australian public since being elected, so it is good of them to go through with one—it is a nice change!
I also agree that investment in infrastructure is a crucial component of economic growth. Labor believe the same, and that is why, when in government, we invested $36 billion under the Nation Building Program and committed to investing a further $24 billion. That is $60 billion in total. That is investment that helped Australia survive and improved our economic status during the global financial crisis while other developed nations floundered.
Just last week we saw another major Labor government infrastructure investment open near my electorate of Newcastle, the Hunter Expressway—the largest-ever infrastructure project built in the Hunter region. The new four-lane, 40-kilometre road will improve road safety, boost productivity and ease congestion. It will cut travel time between Newcastle and the Hunter Valley by 25 minutes. Federal Labor funded the project in the 2009-10 budget at a cost of $1.5 billion as part of its economic stimulus plan. The New South Wales government contributed $200 million. Coalition members who opposed the economic stimulus package in the parliament were, of course, amongst the first to line up to cut the ribbon when the road was officially opened last Friday. I am glad that the member for Hunter, who fought so vehemently to secure funds for the Hunter Expressway, was eventually invited to join with the state and federal government ministers who swooped out of the Hunter just as swiftly as they had arrived.
Let us look at some of the detail of the M1-M2 link—or NorthConnex as it is now being called. The major infrastructure project to link the M1 and M2 is indeed a much-needed missing link and will provide major benefits to travellers making their way to and from Sydney and up to Newcastle. It is a vital project that will remove 21 sets of traffic lights between the Central Coast and the City of Sydney. It is vital for commuters, but it is also good for freight. However, two weeks ago we saw a staged press conference with the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales to rename the project that federal Labor had worked on and included in budgets for a number of years. One hundred and fifty million dollars of that funding is already flowing through this financial year; $5 million flowed into the project in 2012-13 budget as well. The press conference did not announce one extra dollar of investment or one extra metre of road—although we do have a new name, so there will be some new signage. Indeed, there was already an agreement between the state and Commonwealth governments which saw $405 million committed by the New South Wales government and $405 by the Commonwealth, with arrangements for Transurban to conduct the work. The former Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the member for Grayndler, signed the intergovernmental agreement for this project with the relevant state minister, Duncan Gay, in the government party room of the New South Wales parliament on 21 June last year.
If the government, led by the so-called 'infrastructure Prime Minister', are serious about infrastructure, they need to actually build something new, not just come up with a new name for a project already underway. In Newcastle and the Hunter they could build on the preparatory work Labor undertook for high-speed rail that would see Newcastle connect to all the major cities on the eastern seaboard, or they might like to consider some transport links to our currently unserviced airport at Williamtown. This is an attempt by the Abbott government to con the people of Australia into thinking that they are doing something in infrastructure when they are really doing nothing new at all.
One point missing from the motion before the House today is that this road will also benefit the people of Newcastle. We welcome the M1-M2 development, which will free up traffic flows for Novocastrians travelling on to connect with the M7, making significant travel time cuts.
In closing, I commend the government's commitment to completing Labor's program for construction of the M1-M2 link. We agree that investment in infrastructure is vital for economic growth. That is why we implemented such a major nation-building project under the former, Labor government. I genuinely look forward to the government bringing forward some genuinely new infrastructure projects for investment into our future.
Ms Hall: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to ensure that the member opposite does not constantly interject on speakers. Speakers on this side have paid the courtesy of listening quietly to the other side. I did not want to jump up whilst the member for Newcastle was speaking because I did not want to interrupt her speech. I would ask you to call the member opposite to order if he does it again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (11:52): I rise to support the private member's motion before the House, which commends the government for fulfilling our commitment to construct the NorthConnex M1-M2 link. The member for Berowra is right in recognising that NorthConnex is a vital piece of infrastructure and is the missing link in Sydney's transport system. NorthConnex not only will benefit the people of the Central Coast and north-west Sydney but will have a flow-on effect to all areas of Sydney. This is why I have been fighting for the M1-M2 link from the day that I became a candidate and have continued the fight as the member for Dobell.
I was very proud last week to advise the people of Dobell that the Abbott coalition government will build the NorthConnex. We have listened to the residents and businesses of the Central Coast—and that is why the talkfest is over and this government is delivering this vital piece of infrastructure.
NorthConnex will be a nine-kilometre tunnel motorway linking the M1 and M2 motorways. NorthConnex will ease traffic congestion, particularly along Pennant Hills Road, enabling commuters and freight vehicles to bypass up to 22 traffic lights and reduce travel time by up to 15 minutes. This is a win for commuters, who will see reduced congestion, shortened travel times and improved safety on our roads. The economic importance of NorthConnex is highlighted by the 5,000 heavy vehicles that will be removed from Pennant Hills Road on a daily basis. This will increase the efficiency of freight movements, improve safety and air quality and reduce noise for residents and businesses. Of particular importance for commuters will be the ability to travel from Newcastle to Canberra and Melbourne without encountering a single traffic light.
NorthConnex is a jointly funded project by the federal and New South Wales governments, who will each contribute $405 million towards the $3 billion project. Credit must go to the O'Farrell coalition government in New South Wales, who are also getting on with the job and delivering the projects that the previous state Labor government failed to do. Projects such as NorthConnex are the result of a strong working relationship between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. NorthConnex is a significant project for the Central Coast and the people of Dobell.
But this is more than reducing travel times; this is about investment and jobs. The major challenge on the Central Coast is the creation of local job opportunities to match labour force growth. Substantial infrastructure projects such as NorthConnex are vital in developing a stronger and more prosperous economy to enable us to be more competitive and productive and raise our standard of living. The Central Coast is expected to grow by an additional 100,000 people by 2031, requiring more than 45,000 new jobs. The reality, however, is that not everyone will have access to a job close to home or access to their dream job; therefore, many residents will still commute outside the region. For the people of Dobell who commute every working day, NorthConnex will mean shorter and safer travelling options, less time in traffic and more time with their families.
This vital piece of infrastructure is long overdue. This project has been talked about for decades. Labor in New South Wales had 16 years to deliver this project, and the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd federal government had six. Contrary to the false claims being peddled by members opposite, the reality is it was only ever going to be a coalition government that would deliver NorthConnex. We can argue back and forth about who committed what, but the reality is that after only six months of government the Abbott coalition government is delivering on its promise to the people of the Central Coast to build the roads of the 21st century.
In November 2007 the Howard government committed to $1.5 billion over seven years to 2014 to fund construction of NorthConnex. This was in stark contrast to the $150 million committed by the Rudd government following taking office in 2007. Despite all the talk from Labor and members opposite, in May 2011 the Gillard Labor government announced the deferral of $150 million previously committed under the National Building Program until 2015-16. Labor had no intention of delivering the NorthConnex project, and the people of the Central Coast knew this. It has taken the election of the Abbott coalition government to get this project moving again. Within six months of coming to office the Abbott coalition government will see construction of NorthConnex commence within 12 months and the project completed by 2019.
This government is committed to better infrastructure such as the NorthConnex, which will boost the productive capacity of the New South Wales economy, delivering economic growth and jobs to the people of Dobell. I commend this motion to the House.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:57): I would like to start my contribution to this debate by congratulating the former minister for infrastructure, Mr Anthony Albanese, on the work that he has done to bring the NorthConnex project to fruition. I would also like to thank the member for Berowra for his advocacy to the O'Farrell government in managing to get them to sign up to this project back on 21 June last year. I know he has been a long supporter of the project just as I have been a long supporter of this project, because it really benefits the people that I represent in Lake Macquarie and on the Central Coast of New South Wales.
I would particularly like to draw the House's attention to the amendment that was moved by the shadow minister in which he mentions the $450 million that was committed in June 2013 and the simple fact that the former government committed to building the M1-M2 link. I also note the amendment to point (c), that the former government included the full funding for the federal project in the 2013 budget. So this project was fully funded under Labor. It was committed to under Labor and, as much as I hate to say it, this is one thing that the former Howard government avoided. I am really pleased that the Abbott government has made a commitment to backing Labor to the line. I was really confused last week when I saw the announcement of this project, because it had already been announced. The funding had already been committed. As I considered the issue, I realised that the only new thing about the announcement of NorthConnex was the sign that was present at the announcement.
At a time when Infrastructure Australia is being undermined by the current government, at a time when decisions relating to infrastructure are going to be delegated to a committee—despite the fact that we have a Prime Minister who says he wishes to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister—I am really pleased to see a project as vital as this being funded and committed to by the Abbott government. I know the member for Berowra has been an advocate of it for a long time. I give him credit for that and I give him credit for being able to get his Prime Minister to follow up on the commitment the Labor government made under the former infrastructure minister, now the shadow infrastructure minister.
I find it interesting that, all of a sudden, we have Abbott government ministers going out and having photo ops at the sites of projects fully funded and built by the previous Labor government. The Hunter Expressway is an example. The member for Hunter put so much effort into seeing it was delivered. On Friday, it was 'interesting' to see ministers of the Abbott government up there taking credit for something that Labor funded and that the member for Hunter fought for. It is similar to this case. With a project of vital importance to the people I represent in this parliament and of vital importance to the city of Sydney, we have the Abbott government standing up and taking credit for something in which they are only following Labor. Congratulations, shadow minister, for the work you did while you were minister. This will really benefit the people of my electorate. (Time expired)
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:02): My electorate of Bennelong in north-western Sydney is home to some of Sydney's most congested roads. Commuters face long delays every day as they deal with roads ill-equipped to carry the amount of traffic that now travels from and through the area. Epping Road, Beecroft Road, Pennant Hills Road, Victoria Road, Lane Cove Road and Blaxland Road are some of the major roads that service the constituents of Bennelong and beyond. Morning and evening traffic jams are commonplace for the thousands of commuters who travel these roads on a daily basis. A simple breakdown can back traffic up for kilometres, causing disruption to commuters, businesses and residents alike.
It is with this in mind that I applaud the New South Wales Liberal government and the federal Liberal-National government for pushing ahead to get the NorthConnex twin tunnels underway. The announcement that the nine-kilometre missing link between the M1 and M2 motorways is going to be built is a triumph for Bennelong. The NorthConnex will take the pressure off our major roads and return them to the community. The section of Pennant Hills Road that will be bypassed means traffic congestion in both directions through Bennelong will be improved. Beecroft Road, Epping Road, Carlingford Road, Blaxland Road, Victoria Road and Lane Cove Road are all set to reap the benefits—not to mention the dozens of busy local rat runs through the area that were never designed to take the amount of traffic currently visited upon them.
About 30 per cent of light vehicles and 50 per cent of heavy vehicles currently using Pennant Hills Road are expected to divert through the NorthConnex tunnel. With at least 5,000 trucks per day being diverted from Pennant Hills Road through the NorthConnex tunnels, the flow-on effect for everyday road users will be enormous. In addition, commuters and freight trucks will bypass up to 21 sets of traffic lights and reduce traffic time by more than 15 minutes.
Undoubtedly, there will be some local disruption for a period of time whilst construction of the tunnels is underway. Pending this approvals process this will be underway next year, with the tunnels expected to open in 2019. However, the benefits to our community will far outweigh the disruption once the bypass is completed. The NorthConnex will reduce noise pollution and stress on residents, who enjoy heavy vehicles barrelling along Pennant Hills Road 24 hours a day. The tunnel construction is even forecast to increase property values.
Previously, those travelling from north of Sydney to southern Sydney, the Southern Highlands, Canberra or even to Melbourne had to struggle through Sydney's busy traffic, at times adding an hour or more to an already extensive journey. The NorthConnex will allow Sydney to be bypassed completely, and truck drivers, commuters and holiday-makers who have no intention or need to travel through the suburbs of Sydney will reach their destinations in record time. Once NorthConnex is complete, someone travelling from the Central Coast to Canberra could, essentially, enter the ACT without coming across one set of traffic lights. This offers a world-class travel experience and takes major pressure off Sydney's already busy suburbs.
I am proud to be a part of the infrastructure government that is building the roads of the 21st century. The NorthConnex is a result of the strong working relationship between the Commonwealth and New South Wales state governments and is part of our plan to build a stronger economy, delivering growth and jobs. The Australian government is investing $405 million in this $3 billion project, and it will create around 2,000 jobs. Under the former government nothing happened; unlike Labor, the coalition actually delivers on its promises instead of just talking about them.
NorthConnex will become a major freight route for eastern Australia, and will effectively allow trucks to bypass Sydney. In our first term of government, we are getting on with the job and delivering the transport infrastructure Sydney desperately needs. This is a project that has been talked about for decades and which has now become a reality under the New South Wales and federal Liberal and National governments.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:07): The project that used to be called the F3 to M2 link and which now has been renamed the M1 to M2 link, or NorthConnex, is an incredibly important project for my community and for those to the north of me.
I have watched the development of this project over many years: I watched the member for Berowra talk about this project many years ago; I watched the Labor government work on it; I heard the announcement quite some time ago; I saw the initial $5 million flow through the 2012-13 budget; I saw the $150 million in the 2013-14 budget under Labor, which is now flowing; and I saw the press release on 21 June last year, when the federal infrastructure and transport minister, Anthony Albanese, and the New South Wales roads and ports minister, Duncan Gay, signed an intergovernmental agreement on behalf of their respective governments, locking in potential funding contributions required to bring forward the delivery of that all-important missing link. So I have been watching this project grow over many years, and complex projects like this do take many years. Being an infrastructure government requires sometimes years of work before projects come to the first sod, let alone the first vehicle driving down them.
So I was a little surprised when I saw the current government announce this project as their own—'We commit to this. We will do this,' they said. That is wonderful, that unlike so many other transport projects they are not actually removing it from the budget—they are not cutting the budget for this one. That is a great thing. But taking credit—full credit—for work that was done by someone else over many years, in the real world that is not a particularly nice thing to do. If one of your kids did it you might actually be unhappy and think that there was something a bit troubling. If one of your kids did it on an ongoing basis—took credit for something that someone else did, maybe their brother or sister, or blamed their brother or sister for something they did—you might think there was something a little problematic and start working on their character. And yet this is what we see a government doing—a government elected by the people of Australia is prepared to walk into this House, walk out into the public eye and blatantly—with a smirk on their faces because they know it is blatant—take credit for work which is clearly not theirs.
I give credit to this government for continuing with this project—I do, because I have seen so many other infrastructure projects get the chop. We have seen the Abbott government ripping all the federal funding for all urban passenger rail projects, which were also well underway, well down the pathway.
An opposition member: $3 billion.
Ms OWENS: Yes, exactly—$3 billion for your electorate. So it is good that this project is going ahead. It is just a shame that the government does not have a bit more character in its announcement of it. Then again, I also saw a few weeks ago the Minister for Social Services announce that the Abbott government had delivered an increase to the pensions, when actually what happened was an automatic adjustment based around male average weekly earnings which happens twice a year—because we introduced the legislation, the increase automatically comes. Press release: 'Government delivers on pension increase'! Extraordinary exaggeration.
This is an important project and we now have both sides of politics over years that extend prior to the Labor government—through the last years of the Liberal government, through the Labor years and now through the Liberal years again—that will actually deliver this project. But can I say to the members opposite that it really is time. You won government. Have a bit of grace. As victors, have a bit of grace and actually give credit where credit is due. A number of governments—Labor at state level, Liberal at state level, Liberal then Labor and Liberal again at federal level again—have contributed to this project. Really, a little bit of honesty would not go astray.
Debate adjourned.
Franchise Sector
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (12:12): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) with concern that the Minister for Small Business, after more than six months in the job, has failed to implement a single recommendation of the 'Wein Review' into the Franchising Code of Conduct (the Code);
(b) that on 7 January 2014 the Minister is quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying that 'the Coalition would act early in 2014 to "maintain world-class regulatory support for a crucial part of the economy"' and on 6 January 2014 he is quoted in the SmartCompany magazine as saying that the Coalition is 'working as we speak' to ensure that changes are made, with a regulatory impact process expected to be completed by mid-year;
(c) that 30 April 2014 is the 12 month anniversary of Mr Wein handing the previous government his 'Wein Review' recommendations; and
(d) that the overwhelming majority of Australia's franchise sector, including the peak industry associations, stakeholders and small businesses operating under the Code, have provided input to the previous government's consultation process and expect the Minister to broadly implement the recommendations of the 'Wein Review'; and
(2) resolves that the Minister immediately act to provide certainty for this important small business sector and introduce into this Parliament the recommendations from the 'Wein Review' including but not limited to:
(a) building on an effective disclosure regime by ensuring that disclosure remains relevant, timely, effective, and reflects modern changes in our economy such as the growth of online shopping;
(b) clarifying that the Government expects franchisors and franchisees to act in good faith towards one another by making it a requirement under the Code; and
(c) enhancing compliance and enforcement of the Code by providing additional tools to the Commonwealth regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
This parliament for far too long has talked about the franchising sector and done a little but not quite enough. That is both sides of this parliament over a long period of time. The opportunity is now before us for whoever is in government to actually finish the good work that has been done over the past few years. We have moved way beyond the politics for the franchising sector. It is without doubt that there is a natural majority of support for the franchise changes and amendments that have been proposed under the previous Labor government. There is support not only I think in the parliament—in fact, I know there is support in the parliament—but there is also support in the community. And there is support from the sector itself. This is not as if anyone is arguing against any of the proposed changes that came out of some very, very good work over a long period of time—much of it bipartisan if not nearly all of it—particularly now given that the sector has come to also desire the changes that are being proposed.
Labor's record in government of taking forward the vast bulk of the recommendations from the Wein review into Australia's $130 billion franchise sector speaks for itself. In contrast, it has now been 12 months since Mr Wein handed his recommendations from the review to the former Labor government on 30 April, and the coalition has now to act. That is all that is left in this long, enduring saga of introducing some new regulations in this place—but do not take that the wrong way. By introducing a little bit of good, better regulation, you get rid of lots of other bits of regulation and lots of red tape and lots of complexity and lots of uncertainty. By doing a little bit here, we actually help the sector to get rid of a mountain of red tape, bureaucracy, uncertainty and other things.
Just as one example, by us better regulating in this place we take away the uncertainty and the regulation of each and every other state, and their capacity to regulate in this area and the difficulty that not only franchisors but franchisees face in terms of dealing with a national economy on a state-by-state and territory-by-territory basis. This is unworkable. This is red tape. What is before us now is how to reduce that burden; how to make franchisees and franchisors—both sides of the equation—more competitive, have more productive capacity to get on with their daily work, rather than having to deal with different jurisdictions, different rules and regulations and different pieces of uncertainty across the sector.
The Minister for Small Business said on 6 January this year, 'The coalition is working as we speak to ensure changes are made.' The minister is supportive. I support him in that. We have had a long record on some of these matters. Again on 7 January he said, 'The coalition will act early in 2014 to maintain world-class regulatory support for a crucial part of the economy.' I say good on you but I say get on with it. That is what I am saying today: get on with it. Twelve months will be too long since the Wein review was carried out, following on from the work that Labor did in terms of the codes of conduct, in terms of bridging the gap between franchisee and franchisor, doing the very important work of building on the effective disclosure regime that everyone in the sector wants, clarifying that the government expects franchisors and franchisees to act in good faith towards one another in making a requirement under the prescribed code that I talked about. This will enhance compliance and enforcement of the code by providing additional tools to the regulator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This will actually reduce red tape, it will reduce costs. This is what business wants, this is what the sector wants. This is also what government wants. So I say to the government, 'I applaud you but get on with the job.'
It also clarifies the policy intent of provisions of the code which have caused in the past, before these changes come through, unintentional confusion and administrative burden without any corresponding benefit to franchisors or franchisees. So I say today, I implore the government, please move beyond the politics, move beyond the hollow, rhetorical calls for burning of empty pages of red tape and all sorts of rubbish. Do that, but if you can chew gum, walk and perhaps even breathe at the same time, do the good stuff as well. That is what the community expects of you. This is what our economy needs. So have your two minutes in the sunshine talking about regulation and red tape reduction but then come to the table and do something about it as well. This is what I am calling on the government to do. This is what the minister, Bruce Billson, said he would do. So let us see him now put that into action.
Ms Brodtmann: I second the motion the reserve my right to speak.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (12:17): I thank the member for Oxley for bringing this motion to the House because at the end of the day it allows us to reflect on what this new government is doing in comparison to what the previous Labor government failed to do. I note that the member himself had previously made the comment that the former Labor government was committed to providing certainty and confidence in the franchising sector. I am most pleased to hear that, because I am sure there are plenty of us in this House who would be more than happy to see some certainty, stability and clarity brought to the franchising sector for the benefit of both franchisors and franchisees.
To reflect on the member's motion, the Wein review into the franchising code was handed to the previous government at the end of April last year. On reflection, the previous government had those recommendations in hand for at least five months before there was a change of government. Yet at the end of the day it is only now when they are in opposition that they push for some urgency on this issue. But I think it is worth reflecting on their record of urgency in any number of matters on which we are now having royal commissions and other investigations and reviews because of inordinate waste, incorrect drafting of legislation—all manner of things that in their haste to implement they got wrong. I think it is quite prudent on our part as the new government to ensure that we treat these recommendations with the consideration that they deserve to ensure that as they are implemented they are implemented in a manner that works for all concerned.
However, we welcome what appear to be the first signs of enthusiasm for improving and enhancing the franchise sector. The franchise sector would be feeling relieved to know that these important reforms are now being left for the coalition to implement, because we understand small business and the franchisee sector.
We understand the enormity of the contribution small businesses make to our communities and to our economy. We know that small business employ around 4.6 million Australians, accounting for 43 per cent of private sector employment. We know that under Labor, 412,000 jobs were lost in small business alone while the number of employing small businesses declined by 3,000.
In Forde, the fall in this sector has had a huge impact on the higher than national average unemployment rate, as the small business sector is the largest employer in the electorate. The member's motion has drawn attention to our action for small business over the past six months, and I would like to thank him for providing this opportunity to restate some of the decisions we have already taken for the benefit of our small business sector.
We have appointed a Minister for Small Business in cabinet and moved small business from Industry to Treasury. We have moved to protect the privacy of home based businesses on the Business Names Register and implemented a dedicated small business support line with Fair Work. We are in the process of a root and branch review of competition laws, and this has commenced with the release of draft terms of reference. We also passed legislation to remove the carbon tax and we introduced new assistance to small businesses affected by natural disasters in the form of concessional loans of up to $100,000, which will be administered by state and territory governments. We have introduced legislation to remove 10,000 regulations and acts of parliament to cut unnecessary red tape—the largest single bulk repeal in the Commonwealth's history. Work has also commenced on building the roads of the 21st century, because we know that small business people and self-employed people, many of whom are franchisees, know that sitting in traffic jams does nothing to improve the productivity or profitability of their businesses.
These are our efforts to date. So what did the Labor government achieve for small business in the first six months of their government six years ago? Not much really, and to top it off down the track they sought to strangle small business with more red tape and more taxes. It was only in 2012 that they put a minister into cabinet. Only the coalition can reform the code so that the sector will grow and provide employment opportunities for Australians.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:22): I would like to begin by thanking the member for Oxley for moving this important motion. The member for Oxley is a relentless advocate for Australia's small business community, and this motion is evidence of that fact. As a former small business owner myself, I know firsthand the challenges of running your own business—challenges such as juggling your own marketing, administration, tax and superannuation at the same time as keeping clients happy by ensuring you deliver the best possible product and the best possible service.
For franchisees, these challenges can be particularly acute. In addition to the general challenges faced by all small businesses, franchisees face their own unique challenges, such as running a small business with limited autonomy and managing their relationship with and obligations to their franchisor. A number of my constituents are either franchisees or franchisors. I have a number of friends who run McDonalds chains here. Also, one of the highly successful Canberra business women, Louise Curtis, owns Lollypotz, which has been franchising for about the last two years. Like so many small businesses, that business began at the kitchen table and is now an absolute empire. I take my hat off to Louise Curtis for her great work and her great business.
These challenges aside, a franchise can be an incredibly rewarding endeavour. A franchise can provide entrepreneurial business owners with a model for growing their business and sharing their expertise with other aspiring small business owners. For those looking to start a business, franchising can provide them with the opportunity and confidence to do so. Like every business, franchises need the right regulatory environment to operate in. Labor understands this. That is why, on 4 January 2013, the Labor government appointed Alan Wein to review the franchising code of conduct and to make recommendations to ensure the franchising sector was operating in the best interests of its participants as a whole.
Mr Wein undertook a wide-ranging review. Central to his review was consultation with Australian franchisees and franchisors. He submitted his final report to government on 30 April last year. After we received the review Labor issued a consultation paper that was open for submissions from 17 June to 9 July. The aim of this consultation process was to ensure we understood the practical impact to the franchise community of accepting Mr Wein's recommendations. This process received over 160 submissions and included targeted consultation among key stakeholders.
On 24 July last year, at the COSBOA small business summit in Brisbane, Labor announced its response to the review. It included a regulation impact statement so that these recommendations could be implemented as soon as possible. The key changes recommended included building on an effective disclosure regime by ensuring that disclosure remains relevant, timely, effective and reflecting modern changes in our economy such as the growth of online shopping; clarifying that the government expects franchisors and franchisees to act in good faith toward one another by making it a requirement under the code; enhancing compliance and enforcement of the code by providing additional tools to the Commonwealth regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and clarifying the policy intent of provisions of the code that have caused unintentional confusion or administrative burden without any corresponding benefit.
As we all know, the federal election intervened before we had the chance to implement these recommendations. However, in good faith we believed that the new Abbott government would do so shortly after coming into power. We had every reason to believe it. On 7 January this year the Minister for Small Business is quoted as saying that the coalition would act early in this year to maintain world-class regulatory support for a crucial part of the economy, and on 6 January he is quoted in SmartCompany magazine as saying 'the Coalition is "working as we speak" to ensure that changes are made, with a regulatory impact process expected to be completed by mid-year'. Yet here we are nearly seven months after the election, and the Abbott government has done nothing to implement the recommendations of the Wein review. The great irony is that one of the key aims of the Wein review was to provide certainty to Australia's franchise sector, yet now the sector has less certainty than ever because it does not know if or when the Abbott government might implement these recommendations.
We recognise that small businesses are the backbone of our economy; that is why we moved to implement the recommendations of the review as a matter of priority while in government last year. This delay simply is not good enough, and Australian small businesses, including about 73,000 franchises and about 1,180 franchisors, demand better.
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (12:27): I would like to thank the member for Oxley for tabling this motion. I am a bit surprised that he would raise the topic of the Franchising Code of Conduct, where the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments spent six years fluffing around; however, he has done so. Labor tell us that in 2010 they made 'the most sweeping reforms' in this area in 12 years, yet they immediately initiated yet another review. The member for Oxley effectively noted in the motion that after years of government they eventually got around to receiving yet another review of the franchising code, and then five minutes before midnight, so to speak—before the 2013 election—they put out a government response to the review. That was it. In that instance they did not implement anything; they just made some announcements. Where have I heard that story before? It seems very familiar!
But let's not dwell on that. As a former chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry I know a bit about this topic and am well aware of the difficult balancing act that government regulation—rightfully, I might add—has to play in the relationships between franchisors and franchisees. Indeed, further to that, I was personally involved in the introduction of the Franchising Code of Conduct by the Howard government in 1998. In 1998 I was the then chief of staff to the minister for small business. I was involved in a lot of the negotiations and know how difficult this area can be.
As the Wein review summarises:
The Code is a prescribed, mandatory industry code under Part IVB of the CCA.
… … …
Broadly, the Code requires franchisors to disclose specific facts to franchisees and to follow set procedures in their dealings with franchisees. The Code also provides a cost effective dispute resolution scheme for franchisors and franchisees.
As my colleagues have noted, the coalition government recognises that the franchise industry is a significant and growing part of the small business sector. The minister has informed me that the most recent Griffith University survey indicated that franchising contributes more than $130 billion to the national economy and employs over 400,000 Australians. There are over 70,000 franchise business arrangements in Australia today.
The difficulties in dealing with regulation in this area are highlighted by the fact that there have been eight official reports at state and federal levels into the code and the franchising sector over the last eight years. This has created a high level of review fatigue. In moving forward in the light of the recent review, we are very cognisant of that fact. Indeed, the coalition government is committed to generating certainty in the sector and strengthening the effectiveness of the franchising code.
The most recent report, as referred to in the motion by the member for Oxley, is Mr Alan Wein's report, dated 30 April 2013. Mr Wein stated, 'We have a good franchise industry model in Australia,' but nonetheless recommended some reviews. Thus Mr Wein made 18 substantive recommendations in relation to the code and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which of course is the renamed Trade Practices Act 1974. He also recommended about 24 technical amendments to improve and clarify the code rather than change the underlying policy. He was examining good faith in franchising, the rights of franchisees at the end of the term of their franchising agreements and provisions for enforcement of the code.
The government will not be rushed into making any quick decisions. I think businesses in the franchise industry will thank us for that. Rushing in with policies that are not properly thought through is exactly what we have had over the last six years. Under Labor, 412,000 jobs were lost in small business, while the number of employing small businesses declined by 3,000. When Labor came to government, small business employed some 53 per cent of the workforce. It is now just 43 per cent. That is a devastating blow to small business—and do not forget that most franchise businesses are small businesses. One thing I can say is that we are keen to prevent additional state based regulation of the sector.
In the end, the story is very simple. We highly value the franchising industry. As a result, we will not hurt the industry by rushing into policies that are not evidence based. We will be going through the issues in a purposeful and methodical manner. We will get it right and provide for a sustainable and strong franchising sector.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:32): I congratulate the member for Oxley for moving this motion. The franchise sector is incredibly important to our economy. Every one of us in this House would have many in their own electorates that do a remarkable job, employ people and provide good services to our community, and they deserve our absolute consideration in this place.
Before I go on, though, I would like to refer to the contribution by the member for Forde. We seem to have over and over again in this place at the moment the rather untrue statement about the level of regulation under Labor compared to Liberal. It has been repeated again today, and I would like to repeat again what I said in the House: under the last two years of the Howard government, there was more regulation by far than there was under the first two years of the Labor government. We did introduce 21,000 regulations and legislative instruments, including nearly 7½ thousand which were air safety directives or relating to tariff concessions, which business wanted—in most cases relating to just one instance—but we also repealed 16,000. Sixteen thousand went out during our time. Under the Howard years, they came in at a far greater rate than they did under us. So a little bit of truthfulness—where is Sharman Stone when you need her, quite frankly!—in this area would come in handy.
I also want to take him up on the statement he made about Labor's response to the Wein review when it came down on 30 April. He flippantly said, 'Oh, five months later they still hadn't done anything.' I think that, again, they might just want to think about the truthfulness of these statements and what they are trying to get across. The 30th of April was a couple of weeks before the budget, just for a start. What we did was that we managed very quickly to issue a consultation paper, in spite of the fact that it was 30 April. We ran a consultation from 17 June to 9 July 2013 to better understand the practical impacts of accepting the Wein recommendations. Then on 24 July we announced that we had already developed a regulatory impact statement and we would be legislating in August. Of course parliament did not return and an election was called.
Again, the use of a small amount of truth to create a rather large untruth is something that the people on the other side of parliament seem to be very good at. As I said in the last speech, I wonder what they say to their children about that kind of behaviour. 'Do as I say and not as I do. We can make this stuff up because we are the government.' Perhaps they say that, I don't know, but I would urge them to try to behave themselves the way they would expect decent people in their broader community to behave—and this is not the way of it.
The Wein review was incredibly important. It came at the end of a lengthy process of consultation with franchisees and it made a number of recommendations which have been welcomed by the sector. The Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, said that early in 2014 the government would implement these recommendations. Now we hear from the member for Eden-Monaro that that is actually not right. They are not going to do anything. They value the sector but they are not going to rush. They are going to do another review—they are going to review again. They are going to have another look on top of the one that was already done, which had bipartisan support prior to the election and after the election.
Quite frankly, if they want to create certainty for the franchise sector, perhaps the thing to do as government is stop changing their mind. They supported it during the review process. It was bipartisan. I sat on the corporations committee that did the inquiry into this. Through all the consultation process there was bipartisan agreement. An election was held. The Minister for Small Business confirmed that he was committed to it, promised to do it, said that he would do it early in 2014. And now we are hearing that that is actually not the case. If someone on the other side can tell me how that creates certainty for the franchise sector, I think that would be really interesting. It might be helpful to me to hear how changing your mind so quickly provides certainty for the sector.
These changes are changes that the sector wants. The sector was consulted extensively. They have made contributions on the practicality. They have been promised action. Quite frankly, it is about time this government delivered on its promise to this all-important sector.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (12:37): I just want to start by going through the ironies of this motion in my humble opinion. I have chased the member for Parramatta all over the building today, talking about small business. As far as I am concerned, if those opposite want to keep putting out their chin and talking about small business, I will be metaphorically quite prepared to keep whacking them on that chin.
Unlike most of them, and in the defence of the member at Parramatta, she does have a background in it. Unlike most of those opposite, I come from the sector. I come from family business and I understand the important part that it plays day in and day out not only in my electorate of Reid but in every electorate Australia-wide. I laugh at the suggestion that we are a government that will not provide certainty given the six chaotic years that those in this sector have just endured.
The second irony is that 412,000 people in this small business sector lost their jobs under the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. That is quite ironic because what we are talking about today is about 400,000 people, so line ball! In other words, in the six years that we have just had, we have lost the franchising sector or its equivalent in employment in our small business sector, and that is a disgrace—and I will move on to where I believe this government, if they are serious, can make a real difference to small and family business in a minute. But I say to the member for Parramatta, the member for Canberra and the member for Oxley: thank goodness that our government is at the helm and that our minister is in charge of implementing these changes, because they will be implemented. They will be implemented in a timely fashion.
I also find it ironic that we have been here for six months. What have I heard from the member for Oxley, followed by Canberra, followed by Parramatta, is that we have had a review and now we have been here six months. I say to the member for Parramatta that one of the keys to this is changing the powers that the ACCC have in enforcing franchising agreements that adversely impact people who take the ultimate decision to start a small or family business—for many of them, their first attempt to do so.
So I could not help but be more confident in the minister and confident that these will be enforced or implemented in a timely fashion, but I want to move the conversation. We have an employment and underemployment problem in this country, no doubt. Both sides agree. Where we disagree, and where I want to yell and scream, is how we will solve that. It will not be solved by big business, by unions or by government; it will be solved by SMEs, small- and medium-sized businesses. As of 2011—these are unfortunately the most recent reliable stats I can get my hands on—they employed 70 per cent of the workforce in Australia. They have been the backbone of this country—not only the electorate of Reid but every electorate Australia-wide—throughout our country's history, and that will not change.
They deserve better, and I will tell you how this plays out in the streets of Reid and the family and small businesses. The best thing those opposite can do, if they are serious about not only franchise operated businesses but all small businesses, is to get out of the way with the carbon tax. At every stage of the supply chain, this adds expense, so the end user, the business operator, has to pass this on to customers. Guess what: consumer confidence is shot and has been for six years. I go back to the previous point about the six years of uncertainty that we have endured. Traditionally family business and small business owners would pass on price increases to counter the fact that every line of their P&L has had an increase, but they cannot, so what do they do as a result? They change the way they run their business, and they do it in two main ways. Firstly, they casualise their workforce and lay off casual staff, working more hours themselves and simply not paying themselves to do so. Secondly, they alter their trading hours. They do not open on Sundays and public holidays. Guess what we get in Reid and in every other electorate: underemployment, which mainly strikes our youth. Casual employment is the pathway to our youth being employed.
I think this motion brought by the member for Oxley is just an example of a slight snapshot. You are talking about 4½ or five per cent of the employment in this country. If those opposite are serious about being the friends of small and family business, they should move the agenda from this on to things that make a real difference in the everyday lives not only of the people of Reid but the people in the electorates of Oxley, Canberra and Parramatta and other electorates, no matter where they live in Australia.
Debate interrupted.
G20
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (12:42): I move:
That this House:
(1) supports Australia's presidency of the 2014 G20 culminating in the G20 Leaders Summit to be held in Brisbane in November;
(2) calls on all available opportunities to be extended to businesses and community groups to participate in and maximise their engagement with Australia's G20 presidency; and
(3) recognises the importance of such a high level meeting to Australia, particularly the economic, tourism and international business engagement opportunities that will result from Australia's G20 presidency, including the positive impacts on Queensland.
The G20 forum is a unique opportunity in its economic influence. It brings together the leaders of 20 of the largest developed and emerging economies annually to make decisions on global economic challenges, and Australia's hosting of the G20 in 2014 is a major responsibility but also a fantastic opportunity to showcase what we do and how we do it.
I am very proud of the fact that Queensland will be the destination for two of the most significant meetings of the G20 calendar: the Prime Minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott, will host the leaders summit in Brisbane in November, and the Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey, will chair one of the finance ministers and central bank governors meetings in Cairns in September. My colleague the member for Leichhardt will no doubt be speaking on this particular event in great detail. Brisbane being the host city for two of the most important events of the G20 calendar is something we should be proud of. Queensland has a longstanding reputation for staging very secure and successful international events and government meetings, and it is a testament to Queensland's professionalism and demonstrates that there is strong confidence in the capacity of the city to support such large-scale events. With the global spotlight upon us, we will make the most of this opportunity by showcasing the diversity of our Sunshine State as a world-class destination to invest, to do business, to study and to visit.
The G20 is a unique and influential forum. It brings together leaders of the most influential developed and emerging economies to consider and act on global economic challenges. Its membership makes up 85 per cent of the global economy, 75 per cent of trade and two-thirds of the world's population. With more than 3,000 media and 4,000 delegates from across these major economies attending, Queensland will be in the global spotlight of international journalists and key influencers. Brisbane Marketing estimates that the G20 meeting will generate about $100 million in long-term economic benefits for Brisbane through the promotion and exposure the city will receive, and Brisbane Marketing has been charged with maximising the benefit to the city in the medium and long term. This will complement the Lord Mayor's vision of promoting Brisbane as 'Australia's new world city'. The G20 events will put Brisbane and its businesses at the centre of world events, providing important opportunities to build international networks and highlight the best of what the community has to offer.
The G20 will also be a significant funding injection into the economies of Queensland cities and a win for local hotels, venues and the rest of the tourism industry. International tourism contributed $42 billion to Australia's GDP in 2013, and the top five visiting countries were New Zealand, China, the UK, the US and Japan, all of whom will be in attendance at the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane. Together, people from these countries spend nearly $9 billion in Australia.
The G20 will provide opportunities for businesses in my electorate to provide goods and services. All procurement will be undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and tenders will be advertised through the Australian government AusTender website. I encourage businesses in my electorate to investigate subcontracting opportunities with organisations that hold contracts with the Commonwealth and to register for AusTender to be alerted to current and potential opportunities. In addition, a large number of volunteers will be required to assist with the logistics of hosting the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, and they can go to the G20 website to register their interest.
There will be local impacts in hosting such a large forum, and information regarding the G20 impacts will be communicated through the G20 and the Queensland Police Service websites and social media channels. Information will also be made available through Brisbane City Council arrangements. Several community information forums will be held in Brisbane in the lead-up to the leaders summit in November 2014.
This is an absolutely incredible opportunity for Australia to focus on our priorities, particularly on our G20 economic priority, to ensure that collectively we make a commitment to implement policies that lift our GDP by more than two per cent over the trajectory. I am absolutely delighted that Brisbane will be hosting this incredible event. I have every confidence that it will be a huge success and will shape the G20 agenda for many years to come.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (12:48): I second the motion. It gives me great satisfaction to speak to this motion, because in November the G20 leaders will meet in my home city of Brisbane. The G20 is tasked with the coordination of initiatives to strengthen global economic growth. This G20 meeting brings together developed and developing countries—the largest 20. It effectively replaced the G7 at a meeting in late 2008. Then, for the first time in our history, Australia got a seat at the major global economic coordinating table, a very substantial achievement for our country. Australia played a very important role in securing the G20 as the replacement for the G7, and that is something I think every Australian can be proud of.
This meeting will be the second in Asia and the first in the Southern Hemisphere. There was strong support in both the developed and developing world for a G20 meeting to happen in Australia, and it is true that Australia's contribution to the G20 in recent years has been significant and supported by our peers because Australia is seen as an honest broker. We have been able to work very constructively with the old superpowers as well as the emerging superpowers in the developing world and we have assumed leadership of the G20 because of the quality and relevance of what we bring to the table.
In particular there is an expectation amongst other G20 members that we bring forward an agenda that has rigor and has substance. As we know, Australia has always punched well above its weight in the international community, but we should never take our membership of the G20 for granted. It is true that the G20 is at the crossroads and there are those who would love nothing more than to go back to a G7 or a G13. So this is very, very important for Australia.
It is important that the G20 renews its focus in particular on a growth agenda, and Australia must put forward an agenda which is engaging, contemporary and substantial. That is what all the other fellow G20 members are looking for. In particular, we must have a coordinated, comprehensive growth strategy—one whose central purpose is to support global growth, to support jobs across the developed and developing world. Most importantly, it is not enough just to say that we have a growth target. There has to be faith that that growth target will be backed up by substantial reforms in the developed and developing world which will give meaning to the objective of job creation globally.
In particular, I think it is important that Australia refuses the temptation to inject domestic politics into the agenda. Indeed, that would be deeply embarrassing for Australia. I certainly hope we do not have a repeat of what the Prime Minister said in Davos in January, when he denied the origins of the global financial crisis. That indeed would be very embarrassing and counterproductive for Australia. What that means is that Australia needs to be very broad-minded about the agenda. For example, if other nations want to talk about climate change, then that should be on the agenda.
Also, as a proud Queenslander, I am delighted to see that this meeting will be taking place in Brisbane. There will also be a finance ministers meeting in Cairns. This recognises the growing importance of Brisbane, of Queensland and of Far North Queensland to our national economy. It is a very important achievement for our state and for our regions. I was a very enthusiastic supporter of Brisbane as the venue for the leaders meeting, but Brisbane won the bid on its merits. In particular, it won the bid over Sydney because of the quality of our airport, the quality of the transport links and the quality of our convention centre. So, whilst it is great to have it in my home city, it won that bid because of recognition of how important our city and our state has become not just to our national economy but to the regional economy.
It is a fantastic opportunity for Brisbane, Cairns and the rest of the state to showcase itself to the world. I know that there will be some disruption caused by this, but I think it is worth it because what it will bring to our state, to our tourist industry and to our other industries will be a chance to showcase our lifestyle and what we have achieved. But, most importantly, it will symbolise the movement of economic power from west to east. It will symbolise the importance of Queensland, Australia to our global economy and it will showcase our economy—the best developed economy in the global economy over the last 30 years.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (12:53): It is certainly a pleasure for me to speak to this private member's motion put up by my good friend the member for Brisbane. It is no doubt that hosting the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in Cairns in September, followed by the leaders meeting in Brisbane in November, is a massive coup for Queensland. The Cairns meeting on 20 and 21 September will bring about 2,000 people to our city, including the finance ministers and treasurers of the world's strongest economies, international and domestic media, and staff and representatives of organisations such as the United Nations.
Since the news was announced in August 2012, the Cairns business community and the Cairns Regional Council have jumped on board to ensure that the region is showcased to the best of its ability. At that time, Mayor Bob Manning said the news would 'make locals walk another inch higher off the ground'. Cairns Regional Council and the state government are now well underway in the project to revamp the city centre, and I congratulate them for that.
Visiting Cairns last year, Treasury heads described Cairns as an 'exotic and exciting destination for our guests', and there is no doubt that the economic benefits to and exposure of our region will be significant. We have so many assets—a temperate climate, an incredible natural environment, a cosmopolitan city, a broad array of tourism activities—all combined with warm and hospitable service.
It is hard to put a dollar value on it, but in 2010, the University of Toronto measured the benefits of previous G20 and G8 conferences. They found that the host city received benefits in the short term from tourism, accommodation, plane fares and 'advertising', both written stories and direct advertising. In the longer term, the economic benefit comes from business investment. Interestingly, the authors of the study found that the economic benefits were bigger for the cities with a lower international profile. It said: 'In general, the benefits are much greater for the smaller communities and cities that lack the global visibility and infrastructure that the capital cities of the past several centuries have developed.' This bodes well for Cairns.
Representatives of the 24 countries involved, including the US, China, Japan, Germany and the UK, will start arriving two weeks beforehand, while the bulk of visitors, including up to 100 media, will arrive two days before. Already, 2,000 rooms have been booked at the five top hotels in Cairns, extending to Palm Cove, for the heads of delegation, delegates, and Queensland Police Service, Comcar and Commonwealth staff, in contracts worth more than $2 million.
According to the G20 website, most local jobs working at the event will be with our local service providers such as venues, catering providers and accommodation. We are fortunate in Cairns that we already have a diverse and highly experienced hospitality and tourism sector on hand. Businesses in the immediate vicinity of the Cairns Convention Centre area will be able to take advantage of having thousands of international visitors in the area. Many others will be involved through G20 service providers, including venues, transport, accommodation and security. Closer to the date, local services such as labour hire, interior design, local performers, AV services and transport and IT services may be needed. I would urge any locals or businesses who are interested in assisting to keep an eye on the Cairns Post, the G20 website, the Cairns Chamber of Commerce, the AusTender website and other online channels.
Australia's mission to use its leadership of the G20 to drive global growth, and the decision at February's meeting of finance ministers to set a specific global growth target, are being well received. At the meeting, the G20 struck a landmark deal to lift global economic activity by US$2 trillion over the next five years, potentially creating tens of millions of jobs across the globe. For Australia's part, Treasurer Joe Hockey stressed that unless we undertake structural reforms and implement the promises we took to last year's election, our economy will fail to develop. Joe said: 'We all know the challenges that lie ahead, but now's the time to go for growth.'
Cairns has had a tough time of it in the past seven years, but I can confirm that we are absolutely geared for growth. I welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to encourage partners and spouses to travel up to Cairns. If they do that they will find great reasons to spend a bit of extra time there and perhaps, sometime down the track, will bring other family members and friends to Cairns. We are certainly on the cusp of a very exciting time and I am looking forward to the G20 being a real kick-start for our Far North economy and for Queensland's economy more broadly.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:58): I rise to support the motion and I commend the member for Brisbane for moving it. I am particularly pleased to do so, because it shows that support for Brisbane and this crucial meeting is bipartisan. We need to show the world that, when it comes to our engagement with the global economy and its decision makers, we do not play politics. It was disappointing to see the Prime Minister breach this convention earlier in the year, but hopefully the blowback from those comments in Davos will act as a disincentive next time he is tempted.
I want to pay tribute to the people who secured this meeting for Brisbane—people like the member for Lilley, who just spoke, working alongside prime ministers Rudd then Gillard. Engagement with the global economy via the G20 is one of the proudest legacies of Labor in government. It is one of the reasons why Australia did so well to stare down the global recession, create a million jobs and achieve three AAA credit ratings for the very first time in Australia's history.
I have some experience with these G20 meetings, having gone to finance minister gatherings in places like Mexico City, Paris and also, less formally, in Washington, DC. I have seen representatives of our government treated with a great deal of respect, regard and interest because of what we managed as a nation when the world was imposing all kinds of challenges on us, challenges that many other nations could not conquer.
It is a very big deal for Brisbane to host such an important gathering of the world's most influential people. Probably not since the Commonwealth Games in 1982 has Brisbane hosted something which attracts this kind of attention. But this is an even bigger event than those games, because every nation on earth has a stake in what representatives of the 20 biggest economies will be discussing in November. It is a tremendous opportunity for the city and all its businesses. I agree with much of what the members for Brisbane, Leichardt and Lilley said in that regard—about Cairns in the case of the member for Leichardt. These meetings give our people and businesses and community groups the opportunity to show what we are made of—that we are capable of putting on a big event like this and that our community has the capacity to rise to the challenge. When we are tested like this, we generally succeed. This time will be no different.
A lot of my confidence comes from knowing that the Australian officials charged with the responsibility of delivering a great meeting in Brisbane are some of the finest public servants in the country. I have worked alongside many of them. I know their professionalism and their commitment is boundless. I wish all of them the very best as they go about this very important task. I can assure the House and the broader community that the process cannot be in better hands than theirs.
Every single Australian has an interest in the success of the meeting, not just the logistics and the organisational side but, more importantly, the outcomes—whether or not it helps build momentum behind important issues. These important issues include trade, cracking down on profit shifting in the tax system, climate change—ideally—and more. The most important issues of all, however, are those around growth and job creation, not just targets but tangible policies and actual progress that endures beyond the discussion and beyond the day-to-day newspaper coverage of the event.
For our part, Labor will seek to play a positive role in the debate leading up to November, always with an eye to the Australian national interest. Ideally, people will look back on the Brisbane meeting as the time and the place the G20 re-established itself as the most action oriented of the world's economic institutions and transitioned into something more than a tremendous crisis manager during the GFC, which it sure was, into a body that can be a real force for good in more normal times.
The global economy is not in the awful nick that it was a couple of years ago, but it still is an uncertain place. There are good signs and bad signs. There are reasons to be confident and reasons to be cautious. We need to see the G20 as an important way to seek agreement in the global economy about key domestic and international policies—so that those policies are part of the solution to our global and domestic challenges and not part of the problem. This is the responsibility of those meeting in one of the two best cities on earth—Brisbane—the other of course being Logan City to its immediate south. Ipswich is also a good city.
Mr Neumann: Hear, hear!
Mr Champion: I commend the motion and I happily support it.
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:03): You may wonder why I am speaking to this wonderful motion about the G20 meeting put by the member for Brisbane. My electorate of Page is but a beautiful two- to three-hour drive south of Brisbane. I have been working with my local businesses, with my local chambers of commerce and with the tourism bodies in my electorate to ensure we gain some leverage out of this wonderful conference that has been organised. As the member for Brisbane said, this is not only a major responsibility; it is a major opportunity. I will run through some figures that have already been quoted. At this conference, we will have 85 per cent of the global economy represented and 75 per cent of the world's population. There will be 2,000 people from the media there and 4,000 delegates—and spouses as well. So there is great opportunity for us. Obviously, and as we would be well aware, these are not just ordinary people, in the sense that they are global decision makers; they are great people to impress and great people to sell our areas and our communities to.
As the member for Brisbane put so articulately, there is going to be a tender process for procurements for this as well. That is a great opportunity, and I will certainly be working with my local chambers and business networks so that they, too, will tender for parts of this.
An honourable member: In Kyogle, I think?
Mr HOGAN: Absolutely! The important part of this is not only, as I just said, that these people will be here but that they are people of great decision-making abilities. Again, there are huge opportunities and we know the partners as well.
Can I just talk about the conference itself? We have a great opportunity. As the previous member just said, our global economy has great challenges right now but also great opportunities. I know that this government will take a leading role in being the host of this conference to articulate a message to the world of the important position we are in. I have always been very intrigued when I look at history to see why countries become leaders at any point. If you go back and look at any example, whether that be Portugal, Spain, Britain or Greece, when any country was a leader in the world they had a relatively open economy. They were countries or economies that were very much into trading and they were very open to other people around the planet.
We can look right now at economies in our world that are doing well or not so well. This is an exaggerated example, but unfortunately a very true one: North Korea. It is a very closed economy in many senses of the word—not just in trading but in lots of other ways as well. We can see that the people of that country are not in a good way. I always see Hong Kong as a good comparison. It was quite separate from China before they got together again late in the last century. Hong Kong always had an open economy and quite a prosperous economy and people, where economies next door did not if they were closed.
This is not only a good opportunity for us, and a great opportunity for the people of Brisbane and other parts of Queensland, but seriously very much an opportunity for people, businesses and tourism bodies in my electorate to leverage off this to sell the great country that we are, the great culture that we have and the great produce that we have. I know that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister will also be articulating a case and an economic thing at this conference that the world needs to get its policy settings right. As a previous member said, this is not just domestically but also as a global economy. We speak for the wellbeing of 20-odd million Australians in this chamber; the people at this conference will be speaking for three-quarters of the world's population. We need to make sure that we get the policy settings right at this; that we remain open economies and that we remain economies that are in open dialogue with each other, trade with each other and share many cultural and other things with each other so that we continue to grow economically for the benefit of all our constituents. Thank you.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:08): In September 2013 the G20 leaders in St Petersburg committed themselves to comprehensive growth strategies for the Brisbane summit in 2014. They said that would be encapsulated in what is known as the 'Brisbane action plan'. I am looking forward to people coming to Brisbane, the capital of Queensland, later this year, and also to the finance ministers coming to Cairns, a place I am very familiar with.
I would urge those delegates to come to come to the place just down the road along the Ipswich Motorway—the beautiful and historic city of Ipswich, which could and should have been the capital of Queensland. I am pleased that the government is committed to Brisbane. Brisbane is a wonderful place, a wonderful city, but not as historic or old—and certainly not as beautiful—as the wonderful city of Ipswich, from which I hail.
Individual countries will be represented with their own agendas, but the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, believes that Australia must not squander its leadership of the G20 presidency by taking a cluttered approach to the agenda. I do not agree with him. I agree with the member for Lilley, who talked about a broadmindedness in terms of the agenda. It is one aspect of that agenda that I want to talk about—something that I want to see on the agenda for the G20 meeting in Brisbane this year. That something is to take up what UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron did last year, in November and December, when he put the issue of dementia on the G8 agenda for discussion by the leading economies of the world.
Alzheimer's Australia is leading a push—a petition—for Prime Minister Tony Abbott to place dementia prominently on the G20 agenda. I agree with them. Dementia has a global economic impact. If dementia were a country it would have the 18th biggest economy in the world. Its cost to the world economy is $600 billion—about one per cent of global GDP. What we need from global leaders at the G20 is a commitment to invest in dementia research, promote reduction strategies and identify treatments and a commitment that they will undertake important future healthcare and that they will look at the social impact and cost across this region.
Our country is about to be hit by a dementia tsunami. There are about 300,000 Australians with dementia, but we will have about one million by 2050. Dementia is not a normal part of ageing. It is a disease which affects more and more Australians. It has been estimated that three people out of every four of the 36 million people worldwide who are suffering from dementia have not been formally diagnosed as suffering from dementia and therefore are not getting the care and treatment they deserve and need. This treatment gap is most significant in developing countries, particularly in those economies which are often described as low- and middle-income countries. We have many of those in our region, so this is a particularly important issue. I would like to see countries such as China, India and Brazil, in particular, make commitments at G20, because these are important countries for this century's economic development. They will have a greater impact than in the 20th century. It is important that we get countries like those I mentioned involved in dementia awareness, care and research commitment around the world. More funds are needed for the diagnosis, treatment and care of dementia patients.
Alzheimer's Australia has a goal to get 20,000 signatures for its petition. I urge those listening to get behind Alzheimer's Australia. When we were in government we made a large commitment for dementia research and funding. It is estimated that by 2016 dementia will be the leading cause of disability in this country. It is impossible to hide dementia behind closed doors. It is impossible to stem the raging tide of dementia centre by closing the curtains and pretending all is well. I urge the leaders of the G20 to do what David Cameron has done. I urge them to have a look at the G8 Dementia Summit Declaration that was made in London on 11 December 2013, which showed a way forward for an effective international response to dementia. I urge them to take dementia seriously when they are in Brisbane.
Debate interrupted.
Australian Republic
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:13): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) prior to the 1999 referendum to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, many opponents (including monarchists and direct electionists) fomented the expectation that if the vote were defeated, another referendum would be put within a few years;
(b) 14 years on, public support for Australia becoming a republic remains solid; and
(c) Australian engagement with Asia has strengthened, with the former government's White Paper on Australia in the Asian Century reminding us that our future lies in our region; and
(2) calls upon the Parliament to make it a priority to hold a referendum to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, so that every Australian child can aspire to be our Head of State.
'Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
'Who never to himself hath said;
'This is my own, my native land!'
Those fine words from Walter Scott have never been uttered by any Australian head of state about Australia. Under our Constitution, they never could be uttered. That is because, while no British citizen can ever be Australia's head of government, only a British citizen can ever be Australia's head of state.
In 1999, Australia held a referendum. It was a three-cornered contest between bipartisan-parliamentary-appointment republicans, direct-election republicans and monarchists. As the member for Wentworth has pointed out, the monarchists:
… delightedly, if cynically, exploited the division by promising the direct electionists that if the parliamentary model was defeated at a referendum they could have another referendum on a direct election model within a few years.
That was half a generation ago.
Some counsel patience. They argue that the push for an Australian as head of state should wait until King Charles III ascends the throne. But that argument fundamentally misunderstands the argument for an Australian republic. Our quibble is not with Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles or any of their heirs and successors. Each of these individuals has done their job diligently. Indeed, a belief in the republic does not lessen our respect for them as individuals. In 2012, when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall visited Canberra, I was pleased to welcome them on the tarmac of Canberra airport, wearing my Australian Republican Movement cufflinks. Respect and politeness for the royal family sits alongside my passionate belief that Australia should have one of our own as head of state.
Last year, Prince William and Kate Middleton welcomed their baby, George, into the world, and today 800 Australian babies will be born. I congratulate William, Kate and all of those parents. To be a parent is one of the greatest blessings we can receive, but I cannot for the life of me see why baby George is better suited to grow up to be an Australian head of state than any Australian baby. The 800 or so Australian children born today will grow up around gum trees and sandy beaches. They will call their friends 'mate' and barrack for the baggy green, the Wallabies and the Socceroos. Their success in life will not be decided by their surname. If they say they live in a castle, it will only be because they are quoting Darryl Kerrigan.
In short, those 800 babies born today will be Australians, and every one of them should be able to aspire to be our head of state. Some of those who disagree with this view sometimes claim that the Governor-General is our head of state. At best, this is a contentious, strained protestation. As members of the Parliament of Australia, we all swore or affirmed our allegiance to the Queen, not to the Governor-General. At state dinners visiting heads of state toast the Queen of Australia. It is her image that is on our currency. Australian government websites say, 'Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.'
The slogan 'Don't know? Vote no' has never been more powerful in Australian public life. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, used it when he was campaigning for the monarchy in 1999, and has deployed it relentlessly in recent years, including against a market-based solution to climate change, fibre-to-the-home broadband and fiscal stimulus to save jobs. It is a seductively simple line, but one that is more dangerous than ever as Australia grapples with complex challenges. In the Asian century, how do we think it looks to our Indonesian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean friends that we cannot shrug off the anachronism of having a member of the house of Windsor as our head of state? How does it sit with our claimed belief in the fair go when the qualification to be our head of state is to be British, white and preferably male? Is this really the image we want to project to the world?
Through this motion, I call upon the parliament to make it a priority to hold a referendum to make Australia a republic. In so doing, we will make it clear to ourselves and the world that instead of a foreign child in a foreign land, Australians trust an Australian child to grow up and be an Australian head of state—a child who knows their own, native land in their living, Australian soul.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Perrett: I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:18): I rise today to speak on this motion, taking note of its rather odd timing given that Australia's support for moving to a republic is currently at a 20-year low and an impending royal visit is in its final planning stages. Roy Morgan polling shows support for an Australian republic at its lowest since the push for a local as our head of state built up steam in the first half of the nineties. Only 34 per cent of Australians aged over 14 support a republic—the lowest level since 1991. The Morgan figures indicate young Australians are just as keen on the monarchy as their older compatriots.
Many republicans object to heredity being the basis of any power in the state, and understandably so. Such monarchical powers are listed sonorously in textbooks, yet they are a matter of form rather than reality. The supposed power of a constitutional monarch to summon parliament and appoint a prime minister or member of parliament is a mechanical device that treats the monarch merely as the state anthropomorphised. Were the Queen to behave as if the implied discretion were real, her office would instantly crumble. The last time a prime minister was chosen by the monarch against the wish of the British parliament was in 1832, at the height of the reform crisis. When William IV asked the Duke of Wellington to form a government, the old soldier, reactionary as he was, eventually had to concede that those days were over. Later crises have all been resolved by constitutional protocols and the arithmetic of parliament.
As we can observe from the previous parliament, hung parliaments are much enjoyed by political historians, when the will of the people, and thus of the electorate, is not necessarily clear-cut, and so a superior office is needed as referee. What happens, for example, when the largest party cannot win the House of Representatives support? The answer lies in the huddle of crown officers, constitutional lawyers and parliamentary leaders that gather at such times. It does not lie in the untrammelled discretion of a hereditary monarch.
A modern monarch, just like any other head of state, is also expected to work. Should anyone doubt this, I challenge them to spend a day in the company of Her Majesty and see who retires first. De Gaulle might have described the job as being about 'blessing chrysanthemums', but the reality of a nation state is that someone must bless them, and it is a waste of time for a chief executive. The strain is well known on the French and American presidencies, which combine party leadership and executive office with head of state. The American president is estimated to spend at least half of his time on ceremonial and related duties which in Britain are not only delegated to the monarch but across an entire extended family. This is not just a matter of a constant, often tedious round of celebrating, rewarding, consoling, receiving and entertaining as much as a thousand times a year by some member of the royal family; it is a matter of those tasks being done by someone who represents the nation as a whole.
Two things go without saying. One is that the heredity principle will always be subject to performance, as it was in the 17th century. It would not survive an idiot or a criminal, or a holder who blatantly abused the dignified status of monarch. The solution of such a crisis is hard to script, but a solution there would be. Can any monarch ever hope to be proof against reform? The steamroller of human rights law is already bearing down on it. In 1998, a private member's bill in the British parliament questioning the principle of male succession led to the Labour government agreeing to take the matter forward.
All nations have elements of magic, myth and ceremony as part of their processes. These may reside in palaces and churches, museums and galleries, rituals and traditions. Hereditary monarchy is a spectacular embellishment, but in the same category. We would not invent it if it did not exist, but only because its essence lies in encapsulating a nation's continuity over time, which a family is uniquely positioned to do. One should not try to justify this, but politics is about more than reason. Where monarchy exists, as in Britain, Australia and all Commonwealth nations, it carries advantages. Just as a monarch is lucky in inheriting the throne, so a nation is sometimes fortunate to inherit a monarch.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:23): It is with great pride that I rise to speak about this motion to do with a referendum on the republic. I think this is the longest time in the history of Australia that we have not had a referendum on any topic, and it is time to return to this issue. I remember 6 November 1999 very well. I think I was working in the member for Ryan's electorate on that day. It was the day of the Wallabies' World Cup win at Twickenham where that great republican John Eales received the William Webb Ellis cup from Her Majesty. I think that moment summed up the dichotomy that is Australia. There was a republican sportsperson, someone who is perfect—they say nobody is perfect but John Eales is as close as they get sporting-wise—receiving the trophy where Australia won the World Cup.
I remember that day, and it is time to revisit that. As the member for Fraser mentioned, what logic can there possibly be for the fact that no Australian child can ever be our head of state? I heard the words from the member for Ryan, who talked about the signs and symbols, with her argument basically being that our head of state, the Queen of England—the Queen of Australia when she is here—is effectively only a sign and symbol. As anyone knows, as a Catholic or as a politician, signs and symbols always represent the truth that is behind them.
I know that we lift the mace every day in the House of Representatives, and that is an important symbol. The Speaker guards the mace, the symbol of the people's power. And I know that this building is designed to show that line of power from the Great Hall through the cabinet room through to the Prime Minister's office, to show that the Prime Minister is the people's representative, but there is also that other great line of power from the House of Representatives through the middle of the building under the flag representing the Australian people through to the other place. It is an interesting part of Australian history that this building has gone 14 years without our considering this question.
I think that in 1999, as the member for Fraser detailed, Malcolm Turnbull and the other people who led the republican referendum were hoodwinked, were tricked, were outmanoeuvred, by Sophie Mirabella, Tony Abbott and the monarchists. Sadly, some Labor people were a part of that process. I respect their rights. I personally have never seen a need to create another politician, which would be what would happen if we had a directly elected president, but I am more open to a discussion about that process now than I was on 6 November 1999. I do think we need to go to the Australian people. If we had a directly elected President, if it were done under similar rules and concepts to what the member for Ryan said, in that they were only symbolic and were not able to—I know that Her Excellency the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is the head of our defence forces, but I do not think there is a great chance of her going out and rustling up the fleet to invade another nation at the moment. Obviously things have changed over the years.
We have progressed as a nation. There is a theory—constitutional lawyers even say—that since the Australia Act we are effectively a republic anyway. Obviously the signs and symbols that we acknowledge in this building and throughout the RSLs throughout Australia suggest that that is not the case. King Charles III and his successors, be they male or female, do have real capacity to say that they are our head of state. I understand that argument. That is why we do need to revisit this and we do need to educate. I do not want the Australian people to confuse their popular support for and interest in well-known people from the United Kingdom such as the prince who will be visiting. That is great, but because someone is well known and popular does not mean that they necessarily should be our head of state; otherwise, we would end up with Kim Kardashian as our head of state if we used that logic! I believe that we should have a proper process and we should have an Australian head of state in the near future, and this government should bring on this referendum. (Time expired)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:28): I support the member for Fraser's motion with the single caveat that I am not sure that right now is the time for a referendum, but we should never rest as a nation until we are prepared to put this question to the people, and until it is successful we must continue to convince the Australian people. Succeeding, obviously, in that very adolescent notion of moving away from another nation and having our own head of state, in simple terms, to everyday Australians, is a bit like saying that you do not wear your old job ID to a new job interview. You move out as a child into your new home as an adult, and you do not take the whitegoods from your parents' place with you. Ultimately, your parents can give you a credit card, but promising that they will not look at the bank statements every month is just not that convincing. At one point in our history we need to stand on our own two feet and acknowledge that the system of monarchy has worked perfectly for a very long time but it is not perfect enough for Australia to retain.
This nation has an ethnic history which goes well beyond the United Kingdom and we also have an Indigenous heritage, both of which are not consistent with our continuing with our current model of government. But do not in this debate allow any criticism of the monarchy or of the English royal family, who do an extraordinary job—not just Queen Elizabeth herself but all of her family members, as has been pointed out by the member for Ryan. They do a task that I could not ever contemplate being able to achieve—a lifetime of service. So, let us not criticise the monarchy for being either patrilineal or white non-Catholic or anything like that. Now is not the time to criticise the monarchy; now is simply the time to ask what is the greatest form of government that this nation could conceive of—and it is to have an Australian head of state.
I concede that the buses will not stop running tomorrow, yes we will still win the World Cup, yes we will still lose at the Winter Olympics. Nothing will change in that respect. We can keep our flag, we do not need more bureaucracy. All of those monarchist criticisms are unfounded. We only need to make relatively small changes to our Constitution, with the permission of the Australian people. But it is a question that, as leaders in this great place, we must constantly be putting to those who voted us in. Before World War II, when people asked why on earth did we have another nation's generals leading our armed forces into battle, it suddenly became a very uncomfortable question to answer—just as in 1967 it was incredibly uncomfortable to answer why on earth Australians travelled on an English passport. Why as late as 1985 we were still potentially going back to the Privy Council for the final stamp or for appeal under our laws was also a very uncomfortable question to answer. I do not want, 10 years from now, people looking back to me and asking how on earth I could brook such a strange and curious conception for our head of state when the answer was right in front of me, before my eyes.
My model for a minimalist republic is quite simple—it is almost identical to the system we have today. We have to say to Australians that it is just not logically consistent to at one stage fear that we may become the next United States, if we become a republic, and then insist on every Australian voting in a president and therefore having an American system. No, our system works perfectly well. The appointment of a Governor-General who is highly respected and has the support of both sides of the political divide needs to be continued—we simply change the title of Governor-General. By the same token, we have a Prime Minister who is in an executive sense very powerful but not always quite so popular. This interesting tension of popularity and power is often an interesting observation in this nation because it works well—there is someone out there making the tough decisions, who is electorally accountable; there is another person doing the great job that could be done by an Australian head of state instead of the royal family. If you need to further spread that role out, why not incorporate the Australian of the Year for that 12 months to go around and do that very important symbolic and popular work, activating the conversations that this nation needs to have.
We are a nation that is effectively in the top 10 or 12 in the world, and people's eyes turn to us because of the way we run as an effective, efficient democracy. I concede that the monarchist model has played a small but reducing role in that process. Now is the time to again come back to this very important decision. I am not talking about a premature referendum; we must win the public debate long before it comes to a vote. As has been pointed out already by the member for Ryan, that remains a long way away, but there is no excuse for any one of us in this House not to be looking forward 50 years and asking what is the ideal model. When I do that it is impossible for me to come up with any model other than an Australian head of state and Australia becoming a republic.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:34 to 16:02
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Meat Free Week
Free Meat Week
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (16:02): I rise to speak about the travesty that is Meat Free Week, a conspiracy by the Greens, a campaign that is trying to stop Australians from eating meat. They want us to become vegetarians and vegans. They will stoop to anything to stop Australians eating meat. Indeed, we saw Animals Australia, during their campaign to stop live exports to Indonesia, giving cattle human names and human characteristics, such as: 'This is Barry. Barry is a Santa Gertrudis steer. Barry was happily munching grass on his farm in the Barkly Tableland, and these evil men came in the middle of the night and took him off to Indonesia and cut his throat.' It is this sort of nonsense that we are going through from the Greens.
But, I have to tell you, you need meat. Meat develops proper cognitive functions. It increases your lifespan. It develops strong muscles and ensures a healthy balance of hormones within the human body. Vitamin B12, which can only be obtained from meat, is crucial to a healthy nervous system. So I am in support of the campaign by my colleague the member for Dawson, George Christensen, not for Meat Free Week but for Free Meat Week. I would encourage everyone that works and resides in this place to join the member for Dawson tomorrow at lunchtime for a free Aussie barbecue and support our meat industry.
McEwen Electorate: Cultural Diversity Week
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (16:04): I rise to talk about Mitchell shire's family fiesta celebrating Cultural Diversity Week, which happened on the weekend. This is something that is vitally important in a growing area like McEwen, where we have many races and nationalities moving into developing areas, where people come together to be part of the community. By bringing people together we have actually taken the opportunity to create stronger communities, and this will work for the long-term benefit of all the people of McEwen.
This is something that has been very seriously lacking over the years—having a cultural diversity week and having the shire involved to create these events, making sure that when people move into these new areas they can build that social cohesion. Many people from different backgrounds who move in usually find that there are not a lot of people from their own language background and family there, and this makes them very isolated. So this gives people an opportunity to come together to meet their neighbours, have an exciting time and actually enjoy each other's company.
So I congratulate Mitchell Shire Council for taking this initiative. I know it has been a while since this has been done but this is something that is very important, and I hope that it continues for many years to come because the need to strengthen our community is so great when you have such a great growing and developing area like McEwen.
Barker Electorate: Mundulla Bowling Club
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:05): It was with great pleasure that I visited the historic town of Mundulla on 12 March to officially open the new synthetic green at the Mundulla Bowling Club. I was honoured to be there to officially represent the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in opening the new green.
I was joined at the club by Tatiara District Council Mayor Richard Vickery, elected members of the Tatiara District Council and, of course, members of the Mundulla Bowling Club. The Mundulla Bowling Club was approved funding of $115,600 from the Australian government under round 3 of the Regional Development Australia Fund, with the council providing $10,000 and members of the Mundulla Bowling Club themselves contributing $103,600.
The upgrade will ensure that this recreational facility remains viable into the future. This is important for the people of Mundulla and the wider Tatiara community. The synthetic surface will significantly reduce the maintenance costs for the club and I know that the local community appreciates the upgrade, with the green already proving popular. Games are played at least three times a week, with around 60 players participating each day.
I commend the president, Ross Bennett, and members of the Mundulla Bowling Club for achieving this upgrade. It ensures the future of the Mundulla Bowling Club and will ensure that the club will continue to enjoy strong patronage into the future.
Scullin Electorate: International Women's Day
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:07): On Friday, 14 March I had the great pleasure of attending an International Women's Day award ceremony at Riverside Community Activity Centre in South Morang, together with your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell—member for McEwen—and a number of state and local representatives, including Danielle Green, the member for Yan Yean, and Lily D'Ambrosio, the member for Mill Park.
This annual ceremony held in recognition of International Women's Day presents an award to local women who have made a significant contribution, and also a voluntary contribution, to our local community. The award is a celebration of women's achievements and their diverse experiences. I would like to acknowledge the invaluable efforts of all the nominees, all of whom have made a real impact on the communities of Melbourne's north: Pushpa Jayakody, Jasmine Ammoun, Robyn Liebelt, Aida Tadrus, Nejmiye Ayhan, Khamsa Hussein, Nessie Sayar, Sherien Tadros, Pam McLeod, Chandana Rao, Dorothy Challenger, Nancy Piez and Nadine Maher. I extend big congratulations to Deborah Patterson and Heather Fairweather in particular for receiving the Whittlesea International Women's Day award and for their selfless contribution to our community. They are, indeed, worthy winners.
The ceremony was very well attended and I have received many words commending the guest speakers, Pamela Curr, campaign coordinator of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, and Gianna Donato, community care coordinator for Encompass Care, for their inspiring speeches. I also note a wonderful performance from musician Rachel Shields. I extend my thanks to Maureen Corrigan, president of Whittlesea Community Connections and all involved.
Macarthur Electorate: Harmony Day
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (16:08): Last Friday was national Harmony Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of diversity in Australia and in my local electorate of Macarthur. National Harmony Day is an Australian government program that celebrates the great array of diverse cultures existing within Australia, from the traditional owners of this land to those who have come from many countries around the world. Friday was an important day for creating awareness of Australia's multicultural society and for promoting the message that 'everyone belongs'.
There are many ways that Harmony Day can be celebrated: through sport, art, film, music and sharing cultural meals. I congratulate the Macarthur local schools for having organised and participated in national harmony events, including Camden South Public School, Oakdale Public School, Mawarra Public School, Elderslie Public School and Busy Bees kindy.
Harmony Day initiatives involve using art, games and craft to teach children what Harmony Day means, to raise awareness and to discuss diversity. These activities help these children learn and understand how people from diverse backgrounds equally belong to this great nation and how diversity makes it a better place.
Harmony Day is also important for the ongoing promotion of cultural diversity. In this area I congratulate Macarthur Diversity Services Initiative. Established in 1983, the service has been committed to providing welfare and community services to those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in Macarthur. Macarthur Diversity Services and National Harmony Day are important methods for building strong inclusive communities in our wonderfully diverse country.
St Margaret's Uniting Church: 50th Anniversary
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:09): On 7 December 1963 there appeared in the Canberra Times a notice of a new Presbyterian church and Sunday school to be meeting in Watson, Hackett and Woden. The first meeting of St Margaret's church occurred on 2 February 1964, and it was my great pleasure on 2 February 2014 with my son, Sebastian, to attend the 50th anniversary service for St Margaret's Uniting Church in Hackett. I acknowledge Reverends Kerry Bartlett and Brian Brown, John Goss and St Margaret's community for making us so welcome.
I commend to the House the publication reflecting on 50 years of St Margaret's Church, which tells the story of the church's evolution including the episode in the 1970s where is it notes:
The appointment of a Methodist minister placed considerable stress on the understanding of cooperation between Presbyterians and Methodists.
The church has done a great deal to build the local community through its Stepping Stones program, and through Ross Walker Lodge which received a grant through the nation building programs in the global financial crisis to provide housing for Canberrans with disabilities. I commend the St Margaret's community for a great 50 years achievement and the many more decades of achievement to come.
Pilbara Region
Ms PRICE (Durack) (16:11): The Pilbara and Karratha region specifically is undoubtedly the engine room of the nation's economy with the Shire of Roebourne producing the sixth largest economic output of all Australian municipalities and a gross regional product of almost $19 billion in 2012. The sense of optimism in this region is incomparable, and was once again highlighted on my recent trip to the region on 14 March when I met with shire CEO, Chris Adams, and shire president, Peter Long, and other community leaders.
As many members would know, the structure of the Pilbara's economy is unbalanced due to the dominance of the resources sector with the mining sector in the Pilbara contributing annually some 75 per cent, which was the total output in 2010-11. No-one would criticise this growth and the economic prosperity it has brought to Karratha and the wider Pilbara region and, dare I say it, Australia over the past decade. However, you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with the notion that all levels of government were, as you would say, 'caught with their pants down' when the boom hit.
The Pilbara has been playing catch-up in terms of road and port infrastructure, land availability, community development and the availability of goods and services. The region's move from a construction boom to a sustainable production area has allowed it to gain its footing in many of these areas but it still requires significant investment in both economic and social infrastructure to prepare for what is likely to be another growth phase.
Nowruz
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:13): I rise to inform the House that Nowruz is being celebrated all around the world at the moment and with great effect in my electorate of Parramatta. Nowruz is the celebration of New Year. It celebrates the vernal equinox, known as the spring equinox in the northern hemisphere and usually the March equinox in the southern hemisphere. It has been celebrated for over 3,000 years and the word Nowruz itself means 'new day'. I have celebrated it in the last couple of weeks with my Iranian community, my Afghani community and next week I am with my Afghani community again. Last night I celebrated it with my Azerbaijani community and some of my Turkish community, which also celebrate it.
I would like to acknowledge some of the people that made the event so successful. Jafar Ashik, the Consulate for the Republic of Turkey attended. There was Arax Hasiyev, delegate for the Azerbaijani Embassy. Dursun Candemir, President of the New South Wales Council of Turkish Associations was there, as was Omer Can Sirikei, Imametdin Kassoumov, Ali Ulutas and Ali Ozer. It was a great event once again, as it has been several times in my electorate, and the green shoots were back. The placing on the table of sprouting wheat is a tradition that is shared right across the world when this event is celebrated and they were there again last night. Happy New Year.
Swan Electorate: Australian Asian Association
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:14): First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the multiskilling abilities you displayed earlier to get this chamber underway. So congratulations to you for doing that. On Saturday I attended the Australian Asian Association youth cricket tournament and tossed the coin for the fourth game being held that weekend. There were eight teams participating in the competition, which is held annually. They hope to grow this competition to probably having between 12 and 16 teams eventually. This was their third tournament, held on a typical Perth day with magnificent weather and blue, cloudless skies. The tournament was held by the Australian Asian Association at Forest Park, Harold Street, Mt Lawley. I would like to congratulate young KC Yam, the organiser of the day, who managed to get all those teams together on the day, and also Mr Rahim Ghauri, the president, who is often seen in my electorate at citizenship ceremonies announcing the names of candidates at particular ceremonies. I also managed to meet the Bangladeshi team, who were a fantastic, eager team. It was their first time competing in this tournament and they promised me they would perform to the best of their ability on the day. The tournament was also supported by the WA Department of Sport and Recreation, who did a fantastic job. Congratulations to all the teams that participated.
Shortland Electorate: Lake Macquarie Swim
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:16): On Saturday I was very privileged to start the 54th annual across the lake swim at Lake Macquarie. For those members of the House who do not know Lake Macquarie, it is the biggest lake in the Southern Hemisphere. For 54 years swimmers have been swimming across the lake. I was privileged to be there with Cliffy March OAM, who actually swam in the first across Lake Macquarie swim. It was an outstanding event on a perfect Lake Macquarie day. The weather was very good and the water was very smooth. I congratulate the winner, Daniel Collins. He came first this year after coming second last year. He improved his time by two minutes and it was an outstanding swim, with him finishing the 3.8 kilometre swim from Coal Point to Belmont in 43 minutes and 25 seconds. His sister, Jessica, was the first woman to finish. She won the female division and finished fifth overall. There was another division of a kilometre, which was won by Ryan Walker, a young person from Coal Point. I congratulate all the winners.
Dobell Electorate: Green Army
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:18): The government's Green Army will commence in July 2014, providing young people aged 17 to 24 with valuable work skills and formal training qualifications in areas of environmental remediation. The Green Army will become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018, capable of delivering one and a half thousand on-the-ground environmental projects. This program will provide thousands of young Australians with skills, training and experience to improve their employment prospects through participating in projects that generate real and lasting benefits for the environment and their community. Participants will be making a contribution to the environment and their local community through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers and restoring cultural heritage places.
In Dobell the government has committed to three Green Army projects. At the Entrance North beach the Green Army will undertake dune restoration and rehabilitation works, clean-up work will be undertaken on Tuggerah Lakes and environmental enhancement and continuation work will be undertaken at the Central Coast wetlands Pioneer Dairy site. These projects are in addition to our $3.25 million commitment to clean up Tuggerah Lakes through foreshore restoration at Canton Beach and Long Jetty and the renewal and upgrade of gross pollutant traps. I would like to thank the Minister for the Environment, who visited Dobell several times last year to observe how these practical works will deliver real solutions and long-term solutions to our natural environment.
Abbott Government
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (16:19): In February we had the Griffith by-election, and at that by-election the Abbott government failed to reveal to voters the content of the Commission of Audit recommendations for cuts. And here we are heading towards an April by-election in Western Australia, and the Abbott government is again failing to reveal to voters the cuts that it is going to be receiving and considering from the Commission of Audit. When will the Abbott government let voters know what cuts are being recommended? For example, will we see any suggestion in the Commission of Audit for a GP tax, such as that which had been mooted previously before the Griffith by-election and which still will not go away?
It is clear to me that the Abbott government has its priorities all wrong when it comes to cuts and when it comes to spending. An obvious example is the government's $5.5 billion Paid Parental Leave scheme. We know that public policy experts, that economists, that business people have all raised concerns about that $5.5 billion scheme. We also know that experts and academics have called on the government to revisit its priorities when it comes to that scheme and to spend the money, for example, if it is available, on child care, better childcare solutions for working parents. It is an example of the problematic priorities of the Abbott government. I think, with respect, the Abbott government ought to come clean and ought to get its priorities right for spending, and it ought to advise Western Australians what they will really be voting for this April.
Cowan Electorate: Kingsway City Shopping Centre
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:21): I would like to congratulate the Kingsway City Shopping Centre for its most excellent 18th birthday celebrations on Saturday. It certainly drew a big crowd. Matthew Pavlich, the star of the Fremantle Dockers, was there and certainly hundreds of people lined up to get his autograph. I was most fortunate that my desk was right across from there, so we were in a great position to interact with the crowd. There were several thousand people who turned out for the day. It was very gratifying to know that no-one came up and had a go at us for anything. In fact, I felt a lot of support there on the day, which augurs well for the 5 April election. I would like to thank the owner of the centre, Raymond Tan, and centre manager, Michael Tilaka, for such great organisational abilities to bring the whole thing together.
Also there on the day were a couple of minions from the Despicable Me 2 movie, and great local talent Veronica Bravo, who lives in Landsdale. I saw her father there; he is very proud of her great success and the opportunities she is getting in Hollywood as a singer. It is great to have such a local talent from the Cowan electorate. There were many people who were involved in making the great day a success—the face painters, the singers; it was simply an excellent event, so congratulations to the Kingsway City Shopping Centre.
Curran, Mr Wally
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:22): It is with great sadness that I mark the passing today of a much-loved member of my community, Wally Curran. Wally joined the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in 1954, and served as the assistant secretary for 16 years and secretary from 1973 until 1997. He had a big vision for the role of workers, trade unions and government—not only in our workplaces but also in the broader Australian society—and he lived this vision. He was a strong advocate for the rights of workers within the meat industry, campaigning for safety and the improvement of conditions. Often regarded as a soft touch, Wally never permitted migrant workers to be treated any differently from locals. Wally also championed superannuation in the meat industry for workers in the 1970s—decades before any industry superfunds. As Michael O'Connor, National Secretary of the CFMEU, rightly noted today about Wally's pioneering support for meatworkers' super: 'Wally fought for it. It was not given.'
Despite a very busy career, Wally managed to remain an active member of the community for many years of his life. Notably, Wally was a proud member of the Australia Council between 1974 and 1978, and was a tireless advocate for arts in Melbourne's west. This is a legacy I take very seriously in Gellibrand. I know from my branch members that Wally was a mentor to generations of activists in the labour movement. He was a stalwart of the Labor Party's Williamstown branch, often turning up and giving various people a blast when he thought they were not working hard enough—and fair enough too. Wally was a very familiar face to many people in Melbourne's west, and he prided himself on taking an active role in his community—including the Williamstown Sailing Club. The thoughts of the labour movement are with his partner, Kay Morrissey, his daughters, Lisa and Cyndy, and his two grandchildren.
Palmer United Party
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (16:24): The Palmer United Party has been caught out in a cynical attempt to be all things to all people: promising to slash Tasmania's GST before the federal election, committing to maintain the state of Tasmania's GST just before the Tasmanian election, and then, just days after their humiliating defeat at that election, announcing a policy to rip hundreds of millions of dollars of GST payments out of the Tasmanian economy in a desperate attempt to win a seat at the upcoming Senate election in Western Australia.
It has been very easy over recent times for minor parties such as PUP to sneak under the political radar with little scrutiny of their policies. But, as we saw at the last federal election, senators can be elected with just a handful of votes and then hold the balance of power to this great country. This was the case with the Palmer United Party's election of Jacqui Lambie in Tasmania. With just 6.5 per cent of the vote, or less than half a quota, Ms Lambie was elected to the Senate. Now Ms Lambie is faced with the challenge of standing up for the people of Tasmania or backing her party leader in ripping hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Tasmanian economy. This is nothing short of political payback to the voters of Tasmania who resoundingly rejected PUP at the state election. It is incumbent upon Ms Lambie to immediately reject Mr Palmer's vengeful GST policy and back the Tasmanian people and the Tasmanian economy. We are sick of being used as a political football by the Palmer United Party.
Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:25): The interim Commission of Audit report was due to be released in January. However, as we all know, January has come and gone and Canberrans, Western Australians—in fact all Australians—are none the wiser. This information vacuum has created fear in my electorate—fear amongst Public Servants, fear amongst small businesses, fear amongst people in the capital region. And they have every reason to be fearful, because coalition governments have form when it comes to Public Servants. According to the Parliamentary Library there are about 7,600 Public Servants in Western Australia and they do have cause to be concerned. They do have cause to be very, very fearful. As I said, coalition governments have got form.
I take you back to 1996. In 1996 you got rid of 30,000 Public Servants, 15,000 here in Canberra. That sent the economy into a downward spiral here; house prices fell, people left town, shops closed down—it reverberated right throughout the capital region. This is the future that Canberrans potentially face and this is the future that 7,600 public servants in Western Australia potentially face. I call on the Abbott government to come clean on its plans for Public Servants across Australia and, most importantly, those 7,600 in Western Australia.
Infrastructure
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (16:27): I would like to publicly commend the recent announcements by the Liberal infrastructure government of two new infrastructure projects in Western Australia. They are the Gateway WA project and the Kwinana decongestion project. The Gateway WA project will dramatically improve access to Perth airport and its surrounds. It will also reduce traffic congestion for locals and will free businesses from gridlock. Additionally, the federal Liberal government and Liberal state government each committed $31 million to jointly fund the $62 million widening of the Kwinana Freeway southbound between Roe Highway and Armadale Road in Western Australia.
Real action in infrastructure funding and development is underway right around Australia. However, nowhere is it more obvious than in WA. With the upcoming Senate election, it is critical that the big infrastructure projects in WA keep moving forward. Only Liberals are truly committed to progress. My hope is that, in working with my infrastructure government colleagues, we can make ground on 'turning ground' on the stage 8 Roe Highway extension. A lot done; more to do.
Future of Financial Advice
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:28): I rise today to speak in defence of investors in my community currently protected by Labor's Future of Financial Advice, or FoFA, reforms. These reforms were brought in by Labor to protect investors from dodgy advice and vested interest within the financial services industry. Since 2006 there have been more than $6 billion worth of financial advice collapses, affecting more than 120,000 Australians.
The former federal Labor government saw the need to act, and so it did. After a number of parliamentary inquiries it was clear that, when financial advisers were not compelled to act in the interests of investors, unsound advice was given in pursuit of commissions. This resulted not only in people losing their entire savings but entire companies collapsing due to a poisonous mix of conflicting interests.
According to the Australian Financial Review, analysis by Rice Warner actuaries estimates that a repeal of FoFA will cost consumers twice as much as the actual cost of FoFA to the industry over the next 15 years. The FoFA reforms were introduced by the former Labor government to reduce the risks of another Storm Financial, Opes Prime or Westpoint collapse. This is policy on the run from the Abbott government and a poorly thought out attempt to please its backers in sections of the financial sector.
To use John Howard's words, this is a 'barbecue stopper'. It certainly stopped the barbecue I attended on Saturday night. People were aghast. I spoke to many who felt that, when they truly needed to get specific financial advice for their superannuation, they were feeling threatened by the fact that the advisers would not have to act in their interests.
Farm World
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:30): This weekend Farm World will be the focus of attention for Gippsland, Victoria and the nation. Farm World is the premier agricultural event in Australia. It is held at Lardner Park at Warragul. This is a big year for our Farm World exhibition because, in China last year, there were some 16 million babies born. Now that they are changing their one-child policy, there may be many more millions of babies born—up to one or two million more babies born in China next year. Their demand for our milk has risen dramatically since they ran into problems with the production of their own home-grown milk. Our very clean, green, pure baby milk powder is in demand right across China. That is good for dairy farmers in my electorate. It is good for opportunities for machinery sellers.
Everything will be at Farm World—from sources to sandwiches, from grass to greater greenery, from machinery to magnificent opportunities to see how our farmers perform right across Gippsland. I encourage everybody to get along to Farm World at Gippsland. There will be people there from all over the nation and from all over the world.
National Rental Affordability Scheme
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (16:31): I rise to support the coalition's proposed shake-up of the National Rental Affordability Scheme and to flag my commitment to changing its structure so it works to better serve the needs of Territorians. I have spoken to stakeholders over the past few years and they tell me that NRAS does not work for residential developers and does not work for people seeking affordable housing in the Territory. Everyone agrees with the concept of providing workers with affordable rental housing. But we need to ensure that special circumstances in regional areas are taken into consideration. Darwin has the highest capital city rental prices in the country—and rents in Palmerston are not far behind.
During the 2007 federal election campaign, the Labor government promised—and they re-announced this in 2010—to deliver more than a thousand dwellings in the Solomon electorate under NRAS. Four years on, only 230 houses have been completed. That 21 per cent take-up rate is by far the nation's lowest, well behind the 53 per cent in the ACT and the 46 per cent in Queensland and South Australia.
I look forward to working with Minister Andrews to ensure that the current one-size-fits-all model, which clearly is not working for Territorians, is changed. I will continue to push for opportunities to provide affordable housing for Territorians.
Gladstone Harbour Festival
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (16:33): The Gladstone Harbour Festival is on again this Easter. It is one of the largest free community festivals in Australia, showcasing the beautiful surroundings and relaxed lifestyle of the Gladstone region. Over 70,000 visitors come from all over Australia for this Easter weekend event. It begins on the first day with sending off the fleet in the Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race. It has been going on each year for 52 years now and the yachts will start arriving, weather being fair, on about Saturday morning.
It is a week that is jam-packed with celebrations. The main activities are centred around the marina. There is free entertainment, rides for the kids and much, much more. Top Australian entertainment comes to Gladstone to thrill the crowds. The kick-off to the colourful carnival street parade is Sunday, 13 April. It concludes on Sunday, 20 April with a jazz and shiraz entertainment evening. A huge day of horse racing at Ferguson Park is assured, and the finest horses in the area will be on display. Everyone joins in in the festival, so come to Gladstone if you are not doing anything for the Easter weekend.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Laperouse Museum
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:35): Last Friday, 21 March, I was fortunate to join other community members at the Laperouse Museum in my electorate to celebrate Laperouse Day and for the unveiling of a scale model of Laperouse's ship, which he sailed into Botany Bay many years ago, the Boussole. The event was attended by the French consul-general, Eric Berti, and other representatives, including the member for Maroubra, Michael Daley, and the member for Heffron, Ron Hoenig. It was wonderful celebration of the involvement of the French in our area. The history and the significance of the role the French have played in the development of our community, beginning in 1788, when that ship, the Boussole, sailed into Botany Bay, bringing with it French explorers and of course the influence of the French people is not forgotten.
The Laperouse Museum and Headland Trust do a wonderful job in educating the public about that expedition and the ongoing connection of the French community to our area. I congratulate Bill Land and all of the trustees of the Laperouse Museum on their wonderful work in educating our community and spreading the good word about the involvement of the French community.
Melanoma March
Hastings Relay for Life
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:36): Last weekend, two very successful important local community events happened in Port Macquarie. Firstly, the Melanoma March held at Rainbow Beach, Bonny Hills, witnessed nearly 500 keen walkers take to the beach to help support the Melanoma Institute Australia with its research into this aggressive form of cancer. Last weekend's march followed a very successful march last year, which raised over $16,000. I take this opportunity to congratulate the local organising committee: Paula Jackson, Kaela Croft, Maureen Stephens, Brett Kenzig, and Tenille, Jackson and Peter Daniels.
Secondly, my wife, Charlotte, and I also took part in the annual Hastings Relay For Life walk, from Woods Street in Port Macquarie, in support of the Cancer Council's research work. Along with carers and survivors, more than 1,000 community members, parents and children, school groups, students from the University of Newcastle and Newman college, we walked to raise over $100,000. So congratulations to Kellie Seymour and the organising committee for another wonderful effort.
There are so many people in our community who are suffering from various forms of cancer, and there are so many aggressive forms, which is why this research is so critical. If we can find a cure, we can improve the lives of many people and the families that support them or that are part of their broader network. I am pleased our government is increasing investment in medical research and treatment, particularly in relation to cancer as well as diabetes and other diseases. I am delighted to be able to support fundraising activities like those initiated at the community level.
Greek Independence Day
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (16:38): On Sunday I had the privilege of attending the Greek Independence Day march and wreath-laying ceremony in Martin Place. These celebrations were hosted by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, having been hosted by the Greek community in Sydney for over 100 years. Many schoolchildren, members of the public and patriots in traditional attire gathered to celebrate Greek national values and commemorate the sacrifices of those fallen in the cause of freedom. At the ceremony, the Hon. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells represented the Prime Minister in a continuation of his strong relationship with the Greek community in Sydney.
The ceremony marked the 193rd anniversary of Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire, ending 400 years of oppression and occupation. In the Greek War of Independence of 1821, hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers perished as martyrs to those values common to the nations of Greece and Australia: freedom, loyalty and independence.
I was humbled to lay a wreath on behalf of the Greek community in Barton and the Barton electorate as a whole. It was a fantastic day which served to both commemorate our fallen and celebrate the living story of the Greek Australian people and those essential values that we are willing to live for and to die for.
Good Sports
Alcohol Abuse
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:40): I recently attended the Good Sports breakfast hosted by the Australian Drug Foundation to help promote the success of the Good Sports program, which strives to create positive and healthy sporting communities and to reduce the culture of binge drinking.
I had the privilege to speak with Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, former Chief of the Army, who informed me of a shocking statistic. In the Australian armed forces, between 10 and 20 men and women die each year from alcohol related causes. To put this in context: our country has lost 40 soldiers over more than a decade in Afghanistan and the Iraq wars. Our forces have a proud and honourable tradition, yet it seems there is a culture of binge drinking within sections of even our most disciplined of communities. The Army, together with the government, must combat this negative drinking culture.
The organisation Good Sports have been very successful in reducing risky binge-drinking behaviour in local sporting organisations. They have overseen a 15 per cent drop in short-term harm such as violence and injury and a 14 per cent drop in long-term harm like cancer and cirrhosis of the liver. I applaud John Rogerson and everyone at Good Sports for their important work.
Gellibrand Electorate: Shipbuilding Industry
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:41): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a second statement.
Leave granted.
Mr WATTS: Toyota's announcement that it would cease manufacturing and put 2½ thousand employees out of work was devastating news to my electorate. Now, the fate of more than 1,000 more workers at the Williamstown shipyards hangs in the balance. These jobs will be lost in the coming weeks unless the Abbott government delivers new defence contracts to BAE Systems.
BAE have made it absolutely clear that they must make a decision on the future of the Williamstown shipyards by the end of April, yet last week the Minister for Defence, David Johnston, provided this response to this urgent issue:
At some point I'd like to think that you know we'll announce something.
The coalition was elected on a promise to create one million new jobs, yet already 63,000 jobs have been lost. This government's failure to fight for workers and jobs is shameful. It is time for defence minister David Johnston to save this vital industry, not with useless words but by providing it with a contract, a contract that would ensure that world-class naval construction skills are kept in Australia and are not lost—a contract that even the Victorian Liberal Premier is calling on the Abbott government to provide.
It seems that it will take public pressure to save this industry, pressure that will come only by signing my petition, which is available on my website. This petition has gained widespread community support, with over a thousand people signing so far. The petition sends an important message that the community is unwilling to see further jobs sacrificed by an uncaring government. The petition calls on Tony Abbott to act now to save Williamstown's maritime shipyard and stand up for Australian jobs. I say to the people of Melbourne's west: sign my petition, and then hopefully the Abbott government will sign a contract and save the Williamstown shipyards.
Longman Electorate: Deregulation
WYATT ROY (Longman) (16:43): I rise to talk about the coalition's deregulation agenda. I am incredibly proud to be part of a government that recognises that the great creator of wealth, prosperity and employment in our nation is not the government; it is the private sector. The best thing that we can do as a nation is to do everything in our power to get out of the way of the private sector, to remove the regulations and the red tape that businesses in my electorate spend hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks complying with, employing more staff to deal with red tape rather than finding further sales.
I think it is interesting that, when we introduced what has been termed the biggest bonfire of regulation repeal in this country into the parliament, I sat in the chamber and I looked across the divide at my Labor colleagues, and they squirmed and they yelled and they screamed because they just do not believe, in their own DNA, that it is the private sector that creates jobs and it is the private sector that creates wealth and prosperity in this nation. They really do believe that there is no problem in this country that can be fixed until a bureaucrat or a politician in Canberra has had a look at it.
I want to use this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Josh Frydenberg, for leading the charge. He came to my electorate. He listened to locals. We have repealed red tape that was making it harder for businesses in my electorate. Ultimately that means that government will get out of the way, and we will have greater employment for locals in my community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Medicare
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (16:45): If Medicare was a Facebook page it would have around 23½ million 'likes'. It is every Australian's favourite brand. Peter Dutton and the coalition claim that they are Medicare's best friends. They are waiting until after the Western Australian election before they hit the 'unfriend' button. Peter Dutton says he wants to start a national conversation about the future of Medicare, but it is not a real conversation because if you are going to have a real conversation you listen to what the other side is saying. He has already concluded what he wants to do—he is just not letting on. A national conversation would be welcome, but that is not what the government plans.
The Minister for Health has refused to release the Commission of Audit recommendations on health spending, but he revealed last week that he knows what the cuts are that are in the Commission of Audit report, he knows what the recommendations are, he is just not going to let on. He has got it sitting on his desk, and the only thing that is sitting on top of it on his desk is the polling on the Western Australian election. As soon as that is out of the way we will see the commission of horrors and what it means for the health system and the future of Medicare. The coalition are clearly considering means testing Medicare. The minister is flying a new kite every week on this one. He wants to create a multitiered system by restricting the amount the Commonwealth pays GPs for seeing certain groups in the community. He will not tell us what he has decided but he will tell us what he thinks, and what he clearly thinks is that some people should pay more when they go and see their doctor.
We on this side of the House say that it is not up to the minister to decide who is and is not capable of affording to go to see their doctor when they are sick. This is, and should remain, the privilege of the GP. Each and every GP who knows their patients and knows their own community is going to be in a better position than the minister sitting here in Canberra to determine what is in the best interests of those patients. The coalition's plan would clearly remove the discretion that currently lives with the community GP. Make no mistake about it, what is being planned here is a radical downgrade of what we know and love: Medicare Australia. Introducing a tiered system—and that is what is seriously being proposed—means that the GP's Medicare rebate would be the highest for those people on concession cards and their children. They will get the highest level of Medicare rebate and everyone else will get different treatment. The Medicare rebate for family tax benefit A patients would be less again, and for everyone else it would be lower still. Bulk-billing would be for concession card holders and their kids only—nobody else. Obviously, this style of health system is going to put pressure to open up private health insurance to GP services as well.
We have said in the past that this is going to hit people who are poor, but that is only half the picture. Make no mistake about it, this is an attack on the middle class. The AMA's recommended GP consultation cost is currently around $72. Just because you do not qualify for a concession card does not mean you are a high-income earner; it does not mean that you can afford to pay out-of-pocket fees every time you need to see your GP. That is very short-sighted. About 12.8 million Australians—almost 55 per cent of Australians—have private health insurance, so the majority of middle-income earners already pay out-of-pocket expenses each month for their health care. Private health insurance costs are going up and up and up. Recently the coalition approved the largest ever increase in over a decade for private health insurance premiums: around 6.2 per cent or $21 a month. They go on and on about the impact of carbon pricing, but you will not hear them say a word about their own decisions and the impact that they are having on private health insurance rebates, because this is their plan for the future of health care in this country.
Direct impacts will hit the hip pockets of millions of working Australians. Millions of working Australians have their own stories to tell, like Kim Parker, a casual casino worker in Tasmania. Kim's daughter contracted gastroenteritis when she was nine months old. It was in the middle of the night. Kim took her daughter to the emergency room at a local hospital for treatment. It took over three hours and she still never received that treatment. Kim signed up for private health insurance after that experience. It costs her $140 a fortnight. That is a huge chunk of her take-home pay, but she pays that money to make sure her family is healthy. People like Kim exist all over Australia. The cost of health cover is going up and up and up, and make no mistake: for middle-income earners and for people like Kim, under the coalition's plan these costs are going to skyrocket. Many simply will not be able to afford it.
Introducing a fee does not fix the problem; it just creates another one. Dr Hambleton of the AMA says that the federally funded costs associated with GP visits have actually flatlined relative to the cost of hospitals and state government budgets, so this manufactured crisis that they are trying to fix does not exist. The average cost of somebody going to a GP for a Medicare visit is now $36. The average cost of going to an emergency ward in a public hospital could easily be 10 times more than that.
The big drivers of healthcare costs are not spending in general practice. They are public health challenges that the current assistant health minister could not be less interested in—things like tobacco, alcohol and obesity from the sorts of foods that we are eating and encouraging our kids to eat. These are chronic lifestyle diseases that can only be prevented by better health care, better health planning and more affordable access to GPs.
In my electorate, Throsby in the Illawarra in New South Wales, we have a higher-than-national-average incidence of a lot of chronic diseases, and diabetes is one of these diseases. The incidence of diabetes is about 5.6 per cent of the population nationally. In my electorate it is over six per cent—closer to 6.5 per cent, almost one percentage point above the national average. The people who have this disease need more intensive healthcare management. There is a reason for that: if you are able to provide greater care, it means that they are less likely to be hospitalised and less likely to suffer the worst results of having those chronic diseases. This is why bulk-billing rates in the Illawarra are also at historically high levels. They have increased over the last five years, to 91.7 per cent. GPs understand that patients in my electorate require bulk-billing in order to have access to basic primary health care. They need to make sure that patients continue to get access to GPs so we can do health promotion and preventive care and keep people out of the expensive part of the healthcare system, the public hospital system.
So there are three things that we can be absolutely certain will happen if Prime Minister Abbott's plan succeeds. The first is that patients will shift from GPs to the emergency waiting rooms in public hospitals. The second thing is that there is going to be a shift of the cost onto individuals, many of whom are already paying increased costs for private health insurance, particularly middle-income earners. The third will be the unavoidable cost pressure on private health insurance premiums. They will go up and up and up as well.
We only need to look at the US to see what this looks like. We can see that there are spiralling costs in health care. We can see they are paying a greater percentage of GDP than we pay here in Australia for their health services and getting a worse health outcome. The USA today spends the equivalent of 17 per cent of GDP on health care. The total Commonwealth expenditure on health care is about nine per cent of GDP in Australia, less than the OECD average of 9.3 per cent. So we have the American path or we have the Australian path. We know what is going to work.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:54 to 17:09
Mr STEPHEN JONES: As I was saying before the division, if Medicare were a Facebook page we would have 23½ million likes, and that is because it is a great system. Australia spends less on health care than any other country in the world for better outcomes.
Australians have an opportunity in the Western Australian Senate election to send a real message to Tony Abbott and the coalition: 'We do not want your plan for health care'. He says that they are the best friends that Medicare has ever had; well, real friends do not do this.
Carbon Tax
WYATT ROY (Longman) (17:10): In the dying days of the 2010 federal election campaign a desperate Labor Party promised there would be no carbon tax under a Labor government. Then, after sneaking into office on the back of its unholy alliance with the Greens, Labor's lie was exposed. Labor introduced a carbon tax.
Fast forward to the brink of last year's election and the now opposition leader, Bill Shorten, stepped from the shadows, took down his Prime Minister and reinstalled Kevin Rudd who, in another shameless survival bid declared:
We have announced the termination of the carbon tax.
Termination: that sounds pretty final to me. But Labor is nothing if not adept at stabbing its own and mincing its words. It has turned both into an art form.
Of course, the Labor Party never did get rid of the carbon tax. The pledge was not even remotely authentic and was designed as a political fix to fool the Australian people who, after granting this coalition government a mandate to eliminate the tax, have witnessed the Labor Party now rejecting the tax's repeal in the Senate. This pattern of dishonesty—this long-running con—is one thing: Australians have been left with a tax that they hate and that they never voted for.
But leaving aside the moral misgivings of repeatedly saying one thing and doing the opposite, it is the day-to-day impacts of Labor's standing by and for the carbon tax that has cut the deepest. During the six years of Labor administration, the cost of living soared: gas prices jumped by 63 per cent and electricity prices climbed by 93 per cent. Water and sewerage bills were up by 63 per cent, education costs rose by 39 per cent and medical and hospital costs increased by 46 per cent.
In fact, the full extent of the damage has only recently been revealed, with the release of figures detailing the carbon tax's bill for all liable entities for the 2012-13 financial year. In its first year of operation the carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the Australian economy, and a direct hit on about 75,000 businesses. That is far worse than the Labor Party ever let on. Manufacturing has been slugged $1.1 billion, and that is putting pressure on local jobs. The power sector has been hit with $4.1 billion in additional costs. That equates to higher electricity bills for locals in my electorate and across the nation. Indeed, rising electricity costs and ballooning costs of living as a result of the carbon tax are an extraordinary attack on families.
All of this is from the Australian Labor Party, the political movement that is supposed to be helping working Australians. Instead, it has directly and continually loaded up the cost of living and eroded employment opportunities and job creation initiatives. It has had countless opportunities to desist; to eradicate the carbon tax and relieve the pain. But no: the Labor Party, still fearful of stepping out from under the spell of the Greens, is committed to higher electricity and gas bills, and hurting Australian families and businesses.
Unemployment is one of the key negative social dividends of Labor's economic failures. Job opportunity, job security and the rising cost of living are all connected. Somebody who is on Newstart because they cannot find a job is the same issue as a local small business which cannot give that person a job because of crippling overheads. Under Labor, business flagged. So many people found themselves in difficult times because of the exceptionally high cost of living. It was the consequence of bad policies and massive overregulation, underscored by the carbon tax.
But this government, a government which keeps its promises, is cutting the waste. We have introduced a suite of deregulation legislation ahead of the largest single reduction of federal laws in the nation's history. Wednesday's red tape repeal day will see the end to more than 9,000 bizarre, useless and punitive laws, regulations and guidelines that have cluttered our lives, added cost and stymied confidence. The coalition promised a deregulation agenda that would slash $1 billion in red and green tape every year. We are delivering, with hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs to be removed in the first of many dedicated repeal days.
The aim is to get government out of the way—to streamline our lives so that businesses can free their arms and breathe and grow again. That means a stronger economy and more jobs. The previous government's red-tape legacy is well documented: 40 new or increased taxes and more than 21,000 new regulations. We are untangling the mess that has swallowed our businesses, schools and hospitals, a mess that has stifled productivity and outcomes and led to costs being passed onto everyday Australians.
Now, the most corrosive detriment, the carbon tax, must go too. It must go if we are to bring immediate relief to households by cutting off the tax's reach into almost every aspect of daily life, including groceries and transport. After all, in killing off the carbon tax, this government is at the same time keeping the compensation regime of tax cuts and pension and benefit increases—so that is tax cuts and pension increases without a carbon tax. The removal of the carbon tax in 2014-15 will reduce average costs of living across all households by about $550. With the carbon tax gone, based on Treasury modelling, retail electricity prices should be around nine per cent lower and retail gas prices around seven per cent lower than they would otherwise be. That translates to household average electricity bills being reduced by around $200, with household average gas bills down about $70. Treasury's modelling indicates that the abolition of the carbon tax in the next financial year will cut about 0.7 percentage points from the consumer price index. For business, repealing the carbon tax will reduce the bills for inputs, which have been driven up by the escalating cost of energy, primarily gas and electricity. Business compliance costs are also expected to fall, by about $87.6 million a year as a result of the repealing of the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is not cleaning up the environment, but it sure is cleaning out the finances of Australian businesses and families. In my electorate of Longman, local businesses have told me how they have been slugged tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax, money that should be in the hands of potential employees they can no longer afford to hire. Labor refuses to accept the outcome of an election where it experienced the lowest primary vote in 100 years. It cares not for what Australians want but for its own petty politicking and cynical devices to avoid irrelevance. They might be cute with politics, but the members opposite are acute underperformers when it comes to delivering lower costs for all Australians.
It is time, well past time, for Labor to step up and help Australian families and businesses by scrapping the carbon tax. The people have resoundingly voted for it to go, as have the government members in this place. All coalition MPs lived up to their promise to scrap the job-destroying carbon tax, and yet every Labor MP voted to keep it. So Australians have been left in no doubt about who wants to bring down their household power bills and who does not. It may have a different leader, but it is the same old Labor Party—one that cannot be trusted to keep its word; one that stands opposed to strengthening the economy, boosting jobs and manufacturing, and lowering daily costs for all Australians.
I am happy to declare that the will of this government, informed by the will of the Australian people, will not be thwarted. In contrast to Labor's cheap political manoeuvres, shifting loyalties and downright lies, the coalition is a government whose aim is straight and true. We will do exactly what we said we would do. We will not stop until Labor's carbon tax is gone.
Sydney Electorate: Public Housing
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:20): I spoke last week in the House about the residents of Millers Point and The Rocks, who were dealt a terrible blow by the state government in New South Wales last week when they were told that 293 homes would be sold in their suburbs. More than 400 residents have been told that they need to vacate their properties over the next couple of years, and it has been an incredibly distressing week for those people.
I met with residents on Saturday after a meeting was convened at rather short notice. Probably about 100 people turned up to that meeting—we gave them notice of it on Friday—and I think it shows you the depth of concern not only from the residents who are going to lose their homes if this plan proceeds but also from their friends and neighbours who are renting in the private rental market or who own their own homes and who value the rich and diverse communities that Millers Point and The Rocks are. The announcement came without warning and came as an enormous shock to many people—many are still struggling to take in what this will mean for them—who have lived in Millers Point or The Rocks all their lives, and many go back several generations.
This is a community that knows its history and has strong ties with that history. In fact, there was a terrific article in the Sun Herald over the weekend, with an interview of a woman called Glenda Cox, whose family has lived in Millers Point since the 1860s working on the docks. She said:
I've been here in the one house for 61 years … I'm 63 now, and my daughter's done the family tree right back to 1860 in The Rocks and Millers Point area. We've worked and lived here all that time.
… … …
In my time, they didn't want to know you—
she said—
My father used to walk the Hungry Mile on the docks looking for work.
It is very important to remind people of the rich history of this place. It is a place where working-class people were paid by the tail to catch rats when they were trying to stamp out plague in the City of Sydney. There were people who walked the Hungry Mile hoping for work during the Depression. And this place is the bed of so much of our industrial history in Australia.
The residents I met with on Saturday are so very clear that they will not accept these moves from the state government. Part of it, of course, is concern for their own homes, but there were residents who were at the meeting who are not worried about their own homes but still care about their suburb and the community that they are part of. And they asked, quite rightly: what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we really want Sydney to become a city where only the wealthy can afford to live near the centre of the city, or do we want to be as we have always been—that is, a city that has working-class people, poor people living in social housing, quay workers and wealthy people living side-by-side in what is a central part of Australia's rich egalitarian tradition? Do we value communities; do we value history; do we value the fact that these residents have known each other and supported each other, seen their children growing up together, taken each other to doctors' appointments, helped with the shopping when someone was ill? These are communities that are so tightly knit. These people know each other and have supported each other—in some cases for generations—living side-by-side as neighbours. Are we now saying that none of this matters, that the only thing that matters is whether you can afford $2 million to buy into the area?
I believe, and Labor has always believed, that there is a role for every level of government in delivering affordable housing, including in our inner city areas. The federal government has a role, the state government has a role, local council has a role. And on Saturday we heard from local councillors who support affordable housing. I know that the state member for that area supports affordable housing. And, of course, as the federal member I support affordable housing as well. But we are being let down by a Liberal government at the state level and a Liberal government at the federal level. The Liberal government at the federal level has never supported affordable housing. We had the old Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which saw declining public housing stock everywhere because of the underinvestment in public housing. Labor came into government and made a massive investment through the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the stimulus package. That was opposed by many of the state Liberals, including people who campaigned in their local communities, who did not want public housing built in their local communities, and Liberal councils that did not want public housing built in their local areas because they were worried about ghettos. They were not afraid to say that they did not want those types of people living in their local communities.
My electorate has been caught up in the history of public housing for many decades. It was indeed in my electorate that the urban and regional development minister in the Whitlam government, Tom Uren, negotiated the purchase of the Glebe estate, the tripartite agreement in Woolloomooloo and also the Commonwealth purchase of housing in Redfern for the Aboriginal Housing company. They were incredible measures that still bear fruit today. It is where Jack Mundey and the BLF worked together with the local community, with students, residents, activists and others to protect the built heritage of our community and to protect the fact that we have a diverse inner-city community as well.
Our Social Housing Initiative, during the global financial crisis, was the most significant investment in public housing in the history of Australia. There were 19,700 new homes built from stimulus funding alone and more than 80,000 homes upgraded and in some cases returned from dilapidation—a lack of repair that saw them nearing the end of their natural life or even not being used, despite the desperate need for public housing estates in Australia, because they were in too poor a condition. So almost 20,000 new homes were built and 80,000 homes upgraded.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme as well is a sterling effort from a Labor government. It has seen 14,000 new homes built so far for people on low incomes and 24,000 more homes are in the pipeline. There are a range of other housing programs, but the third one I have to mention today, because it goes right back to the people who are facing losing their homes in Millers Point in the Rocks, is the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which expires on 30 June. People who are running homelessness organisations still have no certainty about their funding. They have been told they will have to wait until the budget in May to be told whether they can continue to pay their staff and whether they can continue to run their programs. Any good manager of a business knows that you cannot make a decision in the middle of May to wind up a business in June, if that is the decision you are making. And if you have staff who think they are going to lose their funding on 30 June they are already looking for other work, for other places to go.
We have here, unfortunately, two levels of government—the state Liberal government and the federal Liberal government—that are both showing a complete lack of regard and a complete lack of interest in providing affordable housing to ordinary Australians, to key workers, families and sole parents. On top of that, people in that group who risk slipping into homelessness if they lose their homes do not have the comfort of knowing that there will be homelessness services. That is slender comfort, I know, but they can only have the ability to say, 'Well, that's okay, if we lose our homes there will be someone there to help us,' because the expiry on 30 June of the national partnership on homelessness means that we could see people like these hundreds in Millers Point who will lose their homes, being displaced, being told that they will have to move elsewhere, being told they will have a few choices and that if they do not want to move to outer Sydney, the Central Coast or the Illawarra then: 'I'm afraid we can't help you.' We could have not only that displacement of these people moving out of public housing but the attack on the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which is quite plainly and quite openly a softening up of this very successful scheme for cutting in the budget.
Thirdly, we have got a refusal to sign on to new funding for homelessness, which means tens of thousands of Australians let down. It means homelessness services closing. It means the terrific work we have done, the new facilities we have built and the new programs we have launched ending on 30 June without a commitment to further funding.
Hinkler Electorate: National Broadband Network
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (17:30): I rise to speak on a divisive issue of great concern and of need in my electorate of Hinkler. Since coming to government my office has been inundated with complaints and inquiries about Labor's National Broadband Network. Some constituents argue that only fibre to the home will suffice and we have an even greater number of residents at the other end of the spectrum who say that doing so will make the cost of connecting simply unaffordable. The median weekly personal income in Bundaberg is just $411 and, when you consider that the median weekly rental is $240, internet is a luxury that few in my electorate can afford. Hinkler also has a older than average population.
Many of our older residents say that they have no desire to connect to the internet at home and they question why their taxes should be used to pay for it. They are also concerned about the costs of switching over their medical aids and their alarm devices. For end users who only have a home phone line with no internet or broadband services there is a government program that may cover some or all of the cost of the necessary wiring changes. There are residents who want NBN and better telephone reception but they do not want telecommunications towers constructed near their homes.
There are whole suburbs without reliable internet connection: Urraween, Pacific Haven, Bernard Heads, Redbridge and Buxton. In fact, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 13,000 Hinkler residents have no internet connection whatsoever, 1,600 have dial-up and almost 33,000 have broadband. To give you a simple example, Avoca is a suburb of Bundaberg located less than two kilometres from the Central Queensland University. It is within walking distance of the major shopping centre and several schools. Countless Avoca residents have contacted me. We have tradesmen who spend the majority of their time on the road and they rely on their home internet to download plans, drawings and diagrams. Their clients expect that they are able to access documents electronically. As a former tradesmen and as a currently registered professional electrical engineer, I completely understand their concerns. If you are a small business that works all day on an hourly rate and then you return home to do your night-time billing, your forward planning and your quoting, and with moves towards online quoting systems in particular from government departments, you simply cannot quote on larger jobs if you do not have access to a reasonable connection. You cannot download major drawings, you cannot do online training or assessments, things that you could do outside of your normal working hours.
Apps, updates, Facebook and all those other additional mechanisms are very difficult to manage if you do not have a good connection. Small business is very time poor. This also includes things like their payment systems. You want to be certain that you can pay your wages of a night-time. That certainly will not happen if you keep losing your dial-up connection to whichever banking organisation you may well be working with. So I can really relate to their problems.
Some of those also have students who are nearing the end of their high school studies. As a father of three children, two of whom are still under 10, I can understand the issues around download. Who would have thought 25 gigabytes of data would not be sufficient for a family in this day and age? However, with continuing changes in technology it is clear to me that you will need more and more download and more and more speed in the future. Most of those are around portable devices. So what happens is that these students attending university locally are forced to leave home because they simply cannot do the work they should be able to. Downloading a lecture or submitting an assignment is near impossible in Avoca. Wireless has been costly and dropouts are continuous. Dial-up is simply archaic. The current broadband network is at capacity for the Avoca area. There are no further ports available. Avoca residents are just that little bit too far from the exchange. These residents are caught in the middle of a stalemate. Telecommunications providers will not invest or extend their fixed-line network until they know what NBN Co has planned.
In my maiden speech I said I would do everything possible to provide opportunities to the young people of my electorate, and I mean it. For too long our young talent has been Hinkler's greatest export. One of the ways we can minimise this exodus would be to fix what has to date been the most wasteful and mismanaged infrastructure project in Australian history.
In December last year, we released the Strategic Review of the National Broadband Network. It found that, if Labor's policies were left in place, Australian households would pay up to 80 per cent more for broadband, with bills increasing by $43 per month. The rollout is currently two years behind schedule, with final completion due 11 years later than promised by Kevin Rudd. The cost to taxpayers of completing the NBN under Labor's plan has blown out to $73 billion. That is $29 billion more than we were told.
It is recommended that the project now be completed using a mix of technologies to save the taxpayer $32 billion, keep monthly bills lower and deliver the NBN to all Australians four years sooner than under Labor's plan. Now nine out of 10 Australians will receive download speeds of 50 megabytes per second or more by 2019. An average broadband bill will cost $72 per month using a mix of technologies, compared to $139 under Labor's plan. When you consider that fewer than 400 million of the world's 1.6 billion internet devices are PCs, it is easy to see why using a mix of technologies is ideal. People are simply moving towards portable wireless devices.
NBN Co has commenced community consultation in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay council regions. This is for the construction of fixed wireless internet towers. The towers will cover many of the rural parts of my electorate where the distances are too vast for fixed-line broadband. Residents from the Welcome Creek and Gooburrum areas are invited to attend a session at St George Hall, at South Kolan, on 1 April between 3 and 6 pm. People living in Buxton, Redridge and North Isis can attend the Isis Cultural Centre, in Childers, on 2 April. Moore Park and Avondale residents, who are in the neighbouring electorate of Flynn, can attend the Moore Park community centre hall on 3 April. Further forums will be announced in coming weeks.
To date we have had a number of discussions with council representatives in regard to co-location of mobile network assets on NBN towers. I support Bundaberg Regional Council's request for the proposed fixed wireless internet towers at Alloway and Redridge North to be more substantial. Increasing the size of these two towers not only would produce increased fixed wireless internet coverage but would allow other telecommunications infrastructure to be mounted on the same towers. This would provide an opportunity to address mobile telephone black spots along Goodwood Road, which is one of our major arterials.
Bundaberg council have been very vocal about this issue and at one point accused the coalition of excluding Bundaberg from the NBN. During its six years in government, Labor had not delivered on its NBN commitments, and yet, by their own admission, council's 'entire digital economic strategy was based and adopted on Labor's promise'.
In fairness to council, they were not the only ones confused by Labor's rollout maps. The maps misleadingly described areas as being under construction when in many cases they were, in fact, still in the stakeholder engagement phase, for example. These maps were devised by a Labor government desperate to obscure the slow progress of the rollout. Shortly after coming to government, we amended the maps to more accurately reflect the true progress of the rollout.
Separate to the strategic review, the government instructed the Department of Communications to report on quality of internet access in every single neighbourhood in Australia. The Department of Communications recently launched a website to allow businesses and households to check their broadband speeds and see where they are ranked. I must admit that this did leave me scratching my head and wondering why we would ask people without internet access to access that information online, but those without internet and anyone unable to attend the community consultations can make their views known by telephoning 1800 687626 or contacting my office. The government will use the information it gathers to ensure that underserved areas get the NBN first.
Of course, what is positive news for my electorate is the fact that Bundaberg is a point of interconnection for the NBN. This means that the region is at least one step closer to being able to connect. There is no doubt that the NBN will be of enormous benefit for health, education, business and industry. My wife is a radiographer, which is a fairly high-level area for technology. Pretty much all radiographic images are now transferred by the internet straight to a GP or another doctor, so it is essential in those areas, and they are areas that should be targeted. They are the ones that we should do first, and they are the reason that you should have a cost-benefit analysis.
We will release the new NBN rollout schedule in 2014, along with the revised NBN Co corporate plan, so we are carefully and methodically working through the mess that Labor created. I thank the people of Hinkler for their patience. The National Broadband Network that we deliver will cost internet users less and be more efficient for taxpayers.
Sitting suspended from 17:39 to 17:41
Centenary of Anzac
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (17:41): Today in this grievance debate I want to talk about the importance of the centenary of Anzac, particularly for local communities. Quite rightly, over the coming months and indeed the coming four years we as a nation will, 100 years on, reflect on the contribution and the sacrifice of so many Australians in battles from Gallipoli through the Western Front to war's end. All of us here in this House know and reflect at critical times like Anzac Day and Remembrance Day on just what a massive contribution it was. From a population of just on five million, 400,000 served, 160,000 were injured and 60,000 were killed.
Those national statistics tell so much, but it is really only when you look at the individual contribution of communities—in country Australia, in electorates like mine that comprise both country Australia and outer suburbia, and in electorates like that of my friend the member for Holt that comprise an outer suburban area as well—that you reflect on the contributions within the community. Obviously with statistics such as those I just read out we know logically that no community was untouched, but telling the local stories over these four years is, I think, incredibly important. I think it is incredibly important for school students to be able to know that in their town they can look to the local history and imagine people 100 years ago walking the same streets they now walk, in many cases. That is certainly the case in so many country towns. Certainly students at a number of schools in my electorate walk the same playgrounds and sit in the same classrooms as those who served in World War I did when they were at school a little over 100 years ago.
I had great pleasure in being able to award the first grant of the Anzac centenary program. That might sound a little odd at first, because we are not up to the centenary of the beginning of the war. But my colleague on the other side will know that in Victoria the name Monash is one that always comes to mind, as indeed it does nationally, and the reason for that grant was to recognise and remember an important event 100 years ago last February. That was when Monash took 3,000 volunteer troops to Lilydale in the second week of February 1914 for a week-long training camp. This tells us that, while the nation wanted to avoid what would surely be an awful war, it was simultaneously preparing for it in quite a sophisticated manner. The camp lasted a week. The 3,000 troops travelled to Lilydale by train. They camped at what is now the Lilydale Lake. Back then, it was a swamp, really, around Olinda Creek. They obviously lit up the town of Lilydale for the time that they were there.
On the Thursday of that week, they travelled to Coldstream to stage a mock battle, having had a few days training. It was there that Monash first met General Sir Ian Hamilton, who was out from the United Kingdom. He came to view the troops and he met Monash, and spoke very highly of him afterwards. Back then, in 1914, they sat under a gum tree and discussed a range of military matters, and it was that meeting that they reflected on when they were at Gallipoli in those very difficult months.
When we look at the local angle, we know that those 3,000 troops, who came from some of the inner suburbs and some of the outer suburbs, were volunteers. In later years they would have looked back on that training camp as a better time. We know that all of them at the time were on a journey. For some of them, it was a terrible journey that would end outside Australia, either at Gallipoli or on the Western Front. For others, it was a journey that would continue but one that would affect their lives in no small measure for the rest of their years.
That example I have just given is something that local primary schools and secondary schools can really grasp, something that is right in their backyard. I think it is an important thing if all of us here try and help bring these stories to life, 100 years on, for our community and for our nation.
There are so many aspects of service in World War I that deserve attention. One that has received some attention but that I know all in this place will agree deserves more is the contribution of Aboriginal soldiers in World War I. The 1st AIF was an entirely voluntary force, and that remained the case throughout the war, with conscription referenda defeated—but a significant number of Aboriginal Australians joined up and went and fought overseas. Looking at the history, no-one knows the precise number, for the very obvious reason that they were not accepted. They volunteered in spite of the fact that they were not officially wanted. In fact, the only way they managed to join up was not to join up as Aboriginals but to join up in some other way, often by changing their names. They joined up to fight for a nation that still did not recognise them as citizens and would not give them a vote until the year of my birth, 1967. Those stories need to be told as well. As it happens, many of those were from in and around Healesville, in my electorate of Casey.
I will certainly make it my business over the course of this year in this place to tell some of the stories of those who, at a time, were not recognised as Australians but wanted to fight for Australia nonetheless and did so in numbers of at least 500.
I will finish on one example. The story of one soldier, very well known in the Healesville area, was illustrated very well in the Age back in January 2003. I am quoting from the article from the Age of 25 January 2003:
Jarlo Wandoon tried to enlist for World War I as an Aborigine and was rejected … Jarlo Wandoon is commemorated on the honour roll in the Healesville RSL, under his whitefella name James Wandin—
which he used to join up and to serve in World War I. That is one important story; there are many others that I will tell in the weeks and months ahead.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are no more contributions, 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 1 7 :5 2