The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
Reference to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON: by leave—I move:
That the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Convoy of No Confidence
Parliament House: Tour Guides
Tennis Australia Event: Funding
The SPEAKER (09:02): During the week I have been asked three questions. I table the response to the member for Hughes, in which I indicate the way in which convoy activity was organised between the AFP and organisers of the convoy; to the member for Canning, in which I indicate that there has been no decrease in the budget of the visitors services and how things should be arranged; and to the member for Ryan, which is a letter indicating that the event that she tumbled upon was a Labor Friends of Tourism event. I table the documents.
BILLS
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese .
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Although it is one of the harshest environments on the planet, Antarctica is also one of the most vulnerable.
Australia continues to take a leading role to secure protection of this fragile environment including through participation in Antarctic Treaty consultative meetings, which are the annual meetings of countries which have an interest in Antarctica.
The 2005 Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting requested the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to examine ways to restrict the use of heavy grade oils in Antarctic waters.
Consequently, the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted, on 26 March 2010, amendments to Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to ban the use or carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic area except where it is necessary to secure the safety of a ship or in a search and rescue operation.
The amendments to Annex I of MARPOL entered into force internationally on 1 August 2011.
The purpose of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011 is to amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement these amendments.
This bill will apply the ban on the carriage or use of heavy grade oils to all ships in the Australian Antarctic Territory and to Australian ships elsewhere in the Antarctic area.
The possibility of an oil spill in the Antarctic area is relatively high.
Ships navigating in these waters face a number of risks including icebergs, sea ice and uncharted waters.
The rationale for banning the use and carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic area is that they are more environmentally hazardous than other marine oils because they are slow to break down in the marine environment, particularly in cold polar waters.
It is likely that a spill of heavy grade oils in Antarctic waters would persist for many years and could have a major impact on any wildlife populations in the vicinity, particularly on penguins and other seabirds.
The bill imposes a maximum penalty of $220,000 on both the master and owner of a ship in the event of a breach of this ban.
As a government, we are committed to preventing and reducing marine pollution where possible.
This bill will help to ensure that the Antarctic area remains free of significant pollution damage.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Orders of the Day
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That the following order of the day, private Members’ business, be returned to the House for further consideration:
No. 12—Wild Dogs
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following item of private Members' business being called on, and considered immediately: Wild dogs—Order of the day.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:07): I move as an amendment:
That the following words be added to the motion:
"and (2) that private Members' business notice No. 4 given for Thursday 25 August 2011, standing in the name of the Member for Sturt, be considered immediately."
Mr Speaker, this motion will allow the member for Dobell to come into the House to make a statement to the parliament.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: an amendment must relate to the motion that was moved. It is quite clear that this motion that has been moved is specifically about matters that have been considered by the Selection Committee and determined to be voted upon. There is a process before the House if the member for Sturt wishes this to be voted upon, but it is not in order to move any amendment whatsoever to any process that is moved before the House.
Mr PYNE: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I simply point out that this is a suspension of standing orders motion moved by the Leader of the House. It contains one item. There is absolutely no reason at all why it cannot contain a second item.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The motion is a suspension of standing and sessional orders and in the past there have been amendments of the ilk of the amendment of the Manager of Opposition Business that have been allowed. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr PYNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This amendment allows the government to finally make sure that the member for Dobell comes into the House and makes a statement to the parliament surrounding the issues which have been dogging and paralysing this government for far too long. If I were any Labor Party member of the House of Representatives, I would be demanding that my colleague the member for Dobell come into the parliament and make a statement and clear the air so the government can move on.
This issue has been paralysing the government all week, and for longer in the public eye. All week in the parliament the opposition has tried to give the member for Dobell an opportunity to make a personal explanation and he has refused to do so. If I were a member of the Labor Party caucus I would be wondering: 'Why are we allowing this guy to drag us down? Why are we allowing the member for Dobell to stop the government from getting on with the business of being interested in jobs, being interested in how to resolve this carbon tax dilemma and being interested in how to protect our borders?' Today in the Australian Financial Review Geoff Kitney writes:
One Labor elder says, "It's as ugly out in the electorate as it can get. The depth of anger and hostility is reminiscent of the worst times in 1975 and in 1996. It's absolutely dire."
He goes on to say—
The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Manager of Opposition Business that this is a suspension of standing and sessional orders. His contribution should relate to that motion.
Mr PYNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason standing orders should be suspended and the member for Dobell should be required to make a statement to the House is that the member for Dobell's failure to make a personal explanation about claims that he says are misrepresentations is paralysing the government and is now perilously close to paralysing the country.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business is indeed defying your ruling. I know that he is obsessed by this issue but he must address the question about why standing orders should be suspended.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will go to this suspension of standing and sessional orders and his contribution will be based on this motion. I call the member for Sturt.
Mr PYNE: I hear you, Mr Speaker. The reason it is so important that standing orders be suspended and that this amendment be carried to form part of the suspension of standing orders is the country is unable to get on with the necessary business of protecting our borders, of resolving the carbon tax disagreements that the House has, of ensuring that people's cost of living is not going through the roof, which it is at the moment, and of trying to keep down interest rates and addressing inflation. All of these issues are on hold while the government is paralysed by the issues surrounding the member for Dobell. My point was that, if I were a Labor member of parliament, I would want him to come into the House because, as one senior caucus member said in the Australian Financial Review today:
This is the last thing Julia needed … It gives Abbott another way to highlight the integrity issue which is the albatross around Julia's neck …
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order—
Mr PYNE: This is just obfuscation, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House, on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, this is an outrageous abuse of standing orders. He must address why standing orders should be suspended in order to do that. It cannot be relevant to the motion before the House for him to read into Hansard copies of the Australian Financial Review.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The contribution of the Manager of Opposition Business must go to the reasons for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The member for Sturt has the call.
Mr PYNE: Yes, Mr Speaker, and the amendment that I have moved is for the suspension of standing orders motion to include my motion—and I will read it to the House because it obviously goes very much to the reason why the suspension and the amendment should be carried—which is:
That this House requests the presence of the Member for Dobell to make a statement with respect to all the matters pertaining to his time as National Secretary of the Health Services Union and canvassed in the press, including but not limited to, his receipt of a gift from the NSW branch of the Australian Labor Party that remained undeclared on his Register of Members Interests for 77 days after the time had elapsed that such a declaration should be made.
The capacity to make a personal explanation in this House is a unique one for members of parliament, under privilege, to make a claim that they have been misrepresented and then personally explain that misrepresentation to the House. That is exactly what the member for Dobell will be given the opportunity to do if this amendment is carried. He can put his side—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business continues not to speak to the issue of the suspension of standing orders but to address the substance of the motion that he would move without addressing why this is a complete breach of the processes of the Selection Committee and the agreements that we have about the functioning of this parliament.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is aware that he must contain his remarks to the suspension motion and not enter into a debate that would be allowed if the suspension was successful.
Mr PYNE: The reason all other business of the House should be suspended and nothing else should proceed until this matter is dealt with is what I am speaking to. A suspension of standing orders is essentially saying to the House that no other matter is as important as the matter for which we seek to suspend standing orders. Quite frankly, in this parliament today, until the member for Dobell makes a statement to the House the government is paralysed, distracted and incapable of getting on with the business of governing. The member for Dobell has made the most calamitous defamation action since Oscar Wilde sued the Marquess of Queensberry.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt must return to the suspension.
Mr PYNE: And it is behoven on him to come into the House and explain to the parliament why it is that the rest of the parliament and the government—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is now debating the motion that he is seeking the suspension about.
Mr PYNE: Standing orders should be suspended and the opportunity provided to the member for Dobell to come into the House and explain why it is—
The SPEAKER: That is not the intent of the suspension. The suspension is for you to move a motion, so you must debate that.
Mr PYNE: What I am saying, and I have said it repeatedly, is that no other item of business on the Notice Paper today can be proceeded with until the government lances the boil of the member for Dobell and allows him to give an explanation to the House.
Mr Dreyfus: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business has clearly run out of things to say. He should stick to the purpose.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Keenan: I second the amendment, Mr Speaker, and reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. There being no objection I will put the motion in that form. The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:18): We have established before this parliament, as part of the parliamentary reform, a number of processes for dealing with private members' business motions so that both motions and bills can be voted upon before this House. We have a process whereby we have a Selection Committee in which you, Mr Speaker, play an important role and in which crossbenchers, members of the government and members of the opposition are represented in a way in which the government does not have a majority.
What that Selection Committee does is to provide an opportunity in private members' business greater than ever before for members to have a discussion on issues of concern to their electorates or of concern to the nation and then have votes on them in the House of Representatives. This is a change of practice from what has occurred in the previous 42 parliaments. It has led to a situation whereby, by agreement, we have on Thursdays, in an orderly way, a suspension of standing orders moved by me as Leader of the House and then votes occurring. Those votes occur regardless of what the outcome of the votes will be in terms of the government and the opposition. They are a way in which we have facilitated the engagement in a much greater way, particularly by backbenchers, in the operation of this House. They have enabled us to have some important determinations on specific issues of concern to the electorate or broader issues such as the motion today that has been agreed would be voted upon about wild dogs that was moved by the member for Gippsland.
The very moving of this amendment to my suspension motion, and this amendment being carried, undermines the very integrity of that process. I say to the opposition, and in particular to the Manager of Opposition Business, that the moving of this motion changes the way in which I will operate as the Leader of the House, because this has been done by consensus as part of the reform of the parliament. But, once again, we are seeing that there is no convention and no principle in the operation of this parliament that the opposition are not prepared to undermine and to trash. It is particularly important that we uphold the principles embodied in the parliamentary reform document, which everyone signed up to in the operation of the new House.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, who interjects: what about the way the opposition cut off question time with their relentless moving of suspensions of standing orders? Once again they refuse to engage in proper processes. The Manager of Opposition Business said, somewhat disorderly but he said it nonetheless, that his amendment to my motion should be allowed because this is somehow a distraction for the government from government business. Yet what we see from the opposition, with their relentless negativity, with their refusal and failure to ask a single question yesterday about any policy issue, with their moving of this amendment—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I hesitate to play the petty game playing of the Leader of the House but, as I was constantly being called to order by him and by you, quite properly as the Speaker, I fail to see how yesterday's question time could possibly be relevant to the motion that my amendment be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House knows that he has to argue a case to do with the suspension, and I am sure he is aware of that.
Mr ALBANESE: I am indeed, Mr Speaker. I am also addressing the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business and the arguments that the Manager of Opposition Business put in moving that amendment. The Manager of Opposition Business purports to argue that he is concerned that the government is unable to get on with government business, yet he is moving a suspension of standing orders which would do precisely that. The fact is that just prior to this motion I moved yet another piece of legislation. I expect it will join the 183 pieces of legislation that are being carried by this House on the government agenda. I understand the frustration of the opposition with its failure to defeat a single piece of legislation that has been put before the parliament. Last night, of course, the opposition opposed the tobacco legislation after saying that they were going to support it. So relentlessly negative are they that, even when they come out and make statements saying that they are supporting reform, they cannot bring themselves to actually vote for a piece of government legislation.
I say to the opposition: this is an ill-considered amendment. This amendment will completely undermine, and its moving has already undermined, the processes that have been determined and that have been operating effectively and providing opportunities for each and every member of the House, but particularly members of the crossbenches. The motion that I have moved will facilitate voting on a motion moved by a member of the opposition. I move that motion to facilitate the activity of the opposition. If it is the case that the opposition wishes those processes to not occur and for me, as Leader of the House, to not facilitate votes by members of the opposition, then I can say they have gone a major step down that track in moving this amendment. I ask them to reconsider their position.
The problem with this opposition is that it looks only for the immediate; there is never a plan for tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. This suspension motion will not be carried because the Manager of Opposition Business knows it is a very short-term view that he brings to this. Another member would like to participate in this debate. I say we should reject the amendment if we wish to retain the integrity of the way these processes work, which has been by consensus, which has been through the Selection Committee, which has been through proper processes. I say to the opposition, and particularly to the crossbenches: it is a fact that if this amendment is carried it will completely undermine the selection process.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I do not see how making a plea to the crossbenches can possibly be relevant to the motion that is before the chair, and I ask you to call him back.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: What is relevant is that we have been cooperative with regard to the facilitation of votes on private members' motions and also on bills. The cooperation of the government is required in order to allow votes to occur in private members' business. It is something that has not happened in the past; it is something that did not happen under the Howard government for 12 years. We have a very clear process, which is that members put motions on the Notice Paper and they then go to the Selection Committee—there is a proper process here.
If the member for Sturt wishes his private member's motion to be determined, then the appropriate thing is for it to go to the Selection Committee. That is the process that we all have agreed on. That is the process that has been applied without fear or favour. That is the process in which I have facilitated votes on private members' motions, whether the government was in a majority or not. But this situation will stop it occurring. It will stop the proper process; it will undermine the Selection Committee. It will mean that whether there are to be votes on private members' business will no longer be determined by the Selection Committee but be determined in a partisan way. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I, as Leader of the House, have a fair bit of say over whether that occurs or not. This is ill considered and it should be rejected. (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (09:31): As a member of the Selection Committee I would like to address some of the points that have been raised so far about the integrity of the Selection Committee process. As someone who has sat on the Selection Committee, as members in this place are probably aware but members of the public may not be, opposition, government and crossbench members have the opportunity to come to the Selection Committee and identify which motions they want to be debated. Those motions are then debated the next week and voted on soon after that. If one wants a motion debated, it can happen in less than two weeks.
In all the Selection Committee meetings that I have been to, not once has anyone from the coalition asked for this motion to be debated. If they actually want it to be debated—and it is well within their rights to do so—they could simply have asked for it to happen. We could even be having a vote on it today had they got their act into gear and identified the motion before. If they want to do it at the next Selection Committee, they can do it then. The Selection Committee met twice this week and at no stage did anyone from the coalition ask for this motion to be debated. I think on that basis alone that the amendment should be rejected. If it is not, then we do not have an orderly process for dealing with private members' motions, and that is something that will ultimately come back to affect all of us in the parliament who want to move private members' motions and have them debated and voted on in an orderly way.
One thing I can say about the operation of the Selection Committee and this parliament so far is that it has provided, I think, unique opportunities for matters to be debated that in a majority parliament would not be debated. I think that as a process it has worked well. Indeed, we have seen as a result legislation passed through this parliament that has originated from the member for Denison and from members of the crossbench. If we jeopardise this process, we might lose that opportunity.
I simply encourage the member for Sturt, if he wants to move this motion, to get his representatives on the Selection Committee—and they could have done it a day or two ago—to have time set aside for it to be debated. I can guarantee that I will be amongst the first, as I have done consistently on the Selection Committee, to make sure that opposition motions have just as much time to be debated and that the government is held to its promise that they be voted on in a timely manner. I think that is critical if we are to allow the views of private members in this place to be debated in an orderly way.
On the point about whether or not there ought to be a suspension of standing orders, as I have indicated previously I do not believe as a general rule it is for this parliament to compel members to attend and give answers to questions. Certainly, from what we know about the member for Dobell at the moment, I do not think the facts suggest that there is any reason that he is entitled to anything other than the presumption of innocence. I do think that we should respect proper processes and this parliament should not become a court. This parliament should not become a Star Chamber. However, I do think that, reflecting on the points that have been made in the debate, perhaps the member in question should consider whether voluntarily appearing and making a statement would clear the air, but that is a matter for him. On the facts at the moment, it would not be right for the parliament to seek to compel him to appear or to draw any adverse inference from his failure to make such a statement. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendment.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (09:35): Just to concur with my colleague, I thought this morning we, as per the schedule, were to be debating a motion on wild dogs moved by the member for Gippsland and not to be, as it looks to have become, debating like wild dogs over issues unrelated to the work of the day. I am concerned, as previous speakers have raised, about what seems to be some backing down on an agreement reached on how this place will and should work as the 43rd Parliament.
There is a process in place that does involve the Selection Committee. There has been no evidence yet over the first 11 months of this parliament of any member of any political persuasion, government, opposition or crossbenchers, being denied their rights to get their bills or motions before the House. In fact, the evidence trail is that we are seeing more opportunity for private members' business from all political persuasions, from all members, than we have ever seen in the history of this parliament before even contentious issues such as pricing carbon and calls for plebiscites. The Leader of the Opposition, with that private member's bill, could not have done that in any other parliament other than this one, because of agreements reached. That has gone through the proper process of the Selection Committee, with the approval of crossbenchers, government members and opposition members involved in that selection committee process, and has been brought forward to the parliament for debate. That is the proper process. If any member wants to use it for any issue that they think is important to them or their constituency, that is the process we have all agreed on.
I see in some commentary that ownership of the 43rd Parliament and parliamentary reform seems to have been given to only a handful of members of this chamber. That is completely incorrect. We were there for the group hug—with the Leader of the House and the Leader of Opposition Business. It was there for all to see. And in a somewhat frivolous moment there were 16 days of genuine committed work when ideas came from Liberal and National party members who for years had argued for parliamentary reform in certain areas. There were also ideas from the Labor Party, who for years had been arguing to have parliamentary reforms in certain areas, as they were from the Greens and from the crossbenchers. We sat around and worked it out and agreed. Now there seems to be some backpedalling on agreements reached, and that should be of concern to all members of this chamber. There is a process in place. I would urge all members to reflect on that and to use those agreed processes for all issues of relevance to public policy in Australia today.
What seems to have become an issue of urgency in the last three days is an issue that has been around, by the looks of it from what I read in the paper, for at least three years—and, by the looks of it, there are certainly issues developing.
Mr Ruddock interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT: As the Father of the House interjects, I would hope he has seen enough business in this chamber, in government and in opposition, to stand strongly by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That is a fundamental principle under the rule of law that should stand for a Labor member, a crossbench member, a Greens member, an opposition member, members in the upper house, and 22 million Australian citizens under the rule of law in this country. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle we should all defend if we want to defend democracy and the parliamentary processes.
Mr Ruddock interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT: So until the evidence is in—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Hockey: What evidence? He won't come into the chamber!
The SPEAKER: Order! Whilst the interjection from the Leader of the House is disorderly, and therefore the reminder that I give the chamber applies very much to him as well, as I indicated yesterday, when every person's vote in this chamber is as valuable as it is in this unique situation of the hung parliament I hope that people realise that I still have powers under 94(2)(a) to give even greater value to the vote. I think that it might help and assist the chamber if the rest of this debate is heard absolutely in silence.
Mr OAKESHOTT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is coming to the important point whether the parliament should force another member to make a statement or not based on media reporting and allegations that are made before being proved. I do not think that is my role or the parliament's role. Whether personally that individual member should make a statement for their own conscience and for their own reasons, that is a separate matter for us to deal with and for their own personal judgment and for the decisions of the party that they are a member of, but for the parliament itself to force and call for someone to make a statement to this House based on allegations and not based on proof I think is an abuse of the parliamentary processes.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lyne would realise that I have to remind him that this is a debate about the suspension.
Mr OAKESHOTT: Okay. But I think that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having this debate and part of the reason why I will not be supporting the amendment. Firstly, the process that is there has not been used and so private members' business and private members' time now look to be challenged. I would urge those who want to bring forward issues to use proper processes. Secondly, and fundamentally in defence of this chamber, if we are going to suspend standing orders and move motions based on allegations in the media or otherwise, whether serious or not, and call on people to make statements before things are actually proven, we are not going to do the business of this House that needs to be done.
Thirdly, and for the general theme that it is a year into this 43rd Parliament, I will make a final point because I think this is partly questioning the value of whether the parliament is working or not. I think that it is. I think what we are seeing right here right now is a demonstration of intent of character and it does expose the hearts and minds of various members of parliament and what drives their business in this chamber. That is for the audience of Australia to have a look at and to decide upon at the ballot box. What a parliament cannot normally do when it is in a majority situation is this sort of intense character assessment of who is doing what and why, which we are seeing being openly exposed now. So I call on the Australian people to look at this and question what is being done as an abuse of parliamentary process in order to try to prove that democracy is dead. In fact, it is more alive than ever and everyone, all of us in this chamber, will be held to account for our behaviour.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (09:44): I was not going to speak on this suspension motion moved by the Leader of the House and the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business until I heard the speech by the member for Melbourne. I have been in this place now for 15 years and, even though there are set standing orders in this place, there are certain conventions and it is often the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who set the tone of the House. I was in this place, as the Leader of the House has referred to, during 1996-97, when a number of ministers were forced by the Prime Minister to resign because of their behaviour, and the Prime Minister on numerous occasions came into this place and gave speeches.
The reason we are moving this motion today is that we have tried to use the standing orders as they stand—
Mr Oakeshott: Wrong!
Mr HOCKEY: to have the evidence come before the House—
Mr Oakeshott: You're wrong.
Mr HOCKEY: The outspoken member for Lyne just said, in this place, 'innocent until proven guilty'. That is damn right: innocent until proven guilty. But, if a member of this House goes on 2UE to do an interview with Michael Smith and makes certain admissions and then cannot be tested in this place on those admissions, it is the independent member for Lyne and others who are refusing to properly use the mechanisms of the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! Let's get back to the motion, which is the amendment before the House, because people have strayed. We are not debating the motion that gives the reasons for the suspension. I think if we get back to focusing on the suspension of standing orders it will be much better.
Mr HOCKEY: But, but—
The SPEAKER: No 'but-buts'. I have been very tolerant and I am just saying I think we should be more focused in this debate.
Mr HOCKEY: I am endeavouring to do so, Mr Speaker, because the motivation for this amendment by our side to the motion to suspend is due to a frustration that the House is not operating sufficiently properly to ensure that a member of parliament is properly accountable for the words that they utter in a public forum. For crying out loud—if this place prohibits someone from being accountable for their words then this House is worth nothing.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for North Sydney must address the suspension motion, not the—
Mr Pyne: We didn't interrupt you.
Mr Albanese: You did interrupt me.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt just does not seem to get it, and if I hear a squeak from him for the rest of this debate he will be out under standing order 94(a). That would mean that the last 50 minutes for him has been wasted. These are crucial debates. If you think that they are important, please find it in yourself to sit there quietly. I say to the member for North Sydney that the motion before the chair is an amendment to an original motion by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. He will go to the reasons why he believes that sessional and standing orders should be suspended now—not generalities.
Mr HOCKEY: Mr Speaker, I am saying that there should be a suspension of standing orders, which is perfectly legitimate, and it should be done now because traditionally the government has always taken suspensions that go to the character of an individual in this place. Previously, they have always done it. I tell you what—John Howard did it and other Prime Ministers have done it, but this Prime Minister has refused to countenance other motions to suspend standing orders at previous times this week. She even went so far as to close down question time yesterday, which I must say is unprecedented, in order to avoid the scrutiny associated with this suspension—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business is now speaking about question time; he is speaking about anything but why the suspension of standing orders is required and why the Selection Committee processes are not being adhered to. He is straying from the question before the House.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for North Sydney.
Mr HOCKEY: I say, because it is so important, that all the standing orders are available for proper use by all members of parliament, and the standing orders serve to ensure the great tone of this place—that is, accountability to the Australian people for our words and deeds. That is what this place is about—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chifley has no greater protection than the member for Sturt.
Mr HOCKEY: If we are not accountable in this place for our words at all times when this chamber is sitting then we devalue this chamber in a substantive way. That is why we must suspend, and suspend now—just as our suspension should have been accepted by the government earlier in the week, and as the Prime Minister should have accepted questions yesterday and must accept questions today. When it comes to the Selection Committee, I understand, as does the coalition, that there is a process in place. But, when you suspend standing orders, you are in fact suspending the process to ensure that a matter that is more significant to the Australian people comes before the House immediately.
This is not a game. This is about the reputation of this place, the reputation of an individual and the reputation of a government. It comes down to the proper workings of this place and whether we are mature enough to be able to deal with issues in the public domain immediately. That is what the suspension of standing orders is about. It is about dealing with an issue directly relevant to the Australian people immediately—because it is an issue that is dominating.
I refer to some of the words of the member for Lyne who said that a member in this place should be treated as innocent until proven guilty—absolutely right. No charges have been laid in this matter. What matters is the fact that a member must be accountable—
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is straying.
Mr HOCKEY: I will come back. I am just responding to the member for Lyne.
The SPEAKER: I am inviting you not to stray.
Mr HOCKEY: I am coming back, Mr Speaker. Because charges have not been laid, it is a matter that can be debated by this House now. Sub judice does not apply—and this is specific to the standing orders—until formal charges have been laid. If we are now saying that we cannot suspend standing orders to have a proper debate about an issue relevant to the words of an individual because it may somehow condemn that individual, that is redefining the operations of this chamber in a substantive way. That is why we are moving the suspension. That is why I would expect that those people who believe in this chamber will similarly support the suspension of standing orders this morning.
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (09:53): I would like to make a brief contribution to this debate and, while the member for North Sydney is in the chamber, reflect on the historical context of due process. I will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Sturt to the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders for similar reasons to those of the member for Melbourne. I would appreciate it if the member for North Sydney stayed because I think there are some issues that he was involved in historically that may shed some light on the process that we are involved in at the moment. I endorse the comments of the members for Melbourne and Lyne on the opposition's attempt to compel a member to face the chamber.
The member for North Sydney and I go back a fair way. There are certain parallels that I think he may well remember in another hung parliament where my vote was the determining vote in the formation of the government. In that case it was the Liberal government of Nick Greiner in New South Wales, and I still have great respect for Nick Greiner. The member for North Sydney would remember because he was one of the messenger boys back in those days. I appreciated his company then as I do now. He would well remember the way in which the dogs of politics turned on Nick Greiner at that time, including—and this is where I think it is important in terms of the debate we are having here now in a hung parliament—the independent members of that chamber. He may also remember that I was not one of those who took the judicial process into the parliament and judged an individual—Nick Greiner, the Premier of the state—before the appropriate processes of the law were applied. In that case, it was the accusations that were before the ICAC in New South Wales.
In that case there were demands in the press, as there are now; and demands of the political process, as there are now. The Liberals were in government and Labor in opposition, so they were on different sides of the chamber, but the same game was being played. At that time the three independent members of the parliament were playing the same game as the opposition. In a sense, what we are being asked to do here—
Mr Schultz: What was the outcome? Remind them of the outcome.
Mr WINDSOR: We will get to the outcome, Alby—you would be aware of the outcome.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hume! And I remind the member for New England—I appreciate the spirit of the debate by all, including the member for North Sydney, whom I was harsh upon—that he knows what is before the chamber at the moment.
Mr WINDSOR: I know, and I will bring my contribution to a conclusion. The outcome, as the member for Hume has indicated, is very important. I can remember talking to Nick Greiner on the Sunday before he resigned when his own people, the Liberal Party, took it upon themselves to turn on him.
Mr Schultz interjecting—
Mr WINDSOR: Alby, just listen to me. On that occasion it was the National Party that stood by Nick Greiner. But the appropriate point is that four or five days later—and the member for North Sydney might have a better memory than me—the ICAC brought down a finding that Nick Greiner had not committed—
Mr Robert: Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to direct relevance: the issues of the Greiner government and the ICAC and anything else—
The SPEAKER: The member for Fadden will resume his seat. My feel is the tolerance of the chamber is departing and leaving the member for New England, so he should focus very much on the motion.
Mr WINDSOR: I think what happened in New South Wales encapsulates the arguments that are here today in terms of the dogs of politics. We do have a separation of powers and I for one will stand by that separation of powers. I did then and I will today in a different hung parliament.
The SPEAKER: I invite the member for Hume to withdraw the remarks that he made by interjection during the member for New England's contribution.
Mr Schultz: I withdraw.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (09:58): I approach this debate on the motion to suspend standing orders and the amendment from the point of view of supporting proper process. I, and I hope everyone in this place would, agree that the member for Dobell is innocent until proven guilty. I hope we would all agree that the process of Fair Work Australia and perhaps the New South Wales Police should be allowed to run its course and we should not pass judgment on the member for Dobell until those inquiries are finished. We should not simply be passing judgment on him in this place. I would normally leave it to the Selection Committee to steer us through the business in this place. As a general rule, I would agree with the member for Melbourne, and in fact the member for Lyne, on the importance he places on the Selection Committee. But this is a remarkable episode. There is no denying that the member for Denison is the subject of extraordinary—sorry, the member for Dobell.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Denison has the call.
Mr WILKIE: The member for Denison is sometimes accused of all sorts of things, but in this case the member for Dobell is accused of all sorts of things and some of those accusations are most serious. I do believe that in an extraordinary situation like this it would be appropriate for the member for Dobell to stand and make a statement, even if it is as simple as saying, for example, 'These are serious allegations currently under investigation and I think it is appropriate to reserve my comments until those investigations are complete,' or whatever he might choose to say. He might choose to address each and every one of the allegations point by point. It is up to him. But I think it is appropriate that he stand up and say something. Then we can end these constant attempts to suspend standing orders, which have now disrupted three days of sitting in this place.
This is a remarkable episode. It is out of the ordinary. I will support the amendment put forward by the opposition.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (10:00): Mr Speaker, I rise in this debate very conscious of your desire to keep the debate tight on the matter before the House. I certainly intend to do so. This is a debate really about whether we be on private members' business as determined by the Selection Committee or whether we have another stunt in this place that is all about political opportunism and, worse than that, about running interference on proper legal processes. I rise in this debate wearing three hats: as a member of the Selection Committee, as the Chief Government Whip and as a private member in this place. On all three counts, I rise as a fierce defender of private members' rights in this place.
We do have a process. I am now making a contribution on behalf of government members of the Selection Committee. Both the member for Lyne and the member for Melbourne sit on the Selection Committee. They have now made very substantial contributions. I want to thank them for that. The only person who has not now made a contribution to this debate is a member of the opposition who sits on the Selection Committee. I am not surprised. The member for Berowra is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. The member for Barker is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. Both are members of the Selection Committee. I invite them to make a contribution to this debate. I think their contribution is critical in determining what the House should be doing here: whether we should be giving priority to private members' business and rights or whether we should be backing a stunt.
I suspect they are very reluctant to make a contribution because they find themselves sitting there in agreement with me, in agreement with the member for Melbourne and in agreement with the member for Lyne. They know as members of the Selection Committee, as do you, Mr Speaker, as the esteemed chair of that committee, how hard we have worked to make this agreement work and how hard we have slogged to ensure that not only do private members get maximum opportunity in this place but also it works in a bipartisan way.
As you know better than anyone, Mr Speaker, it has been a messy process from time to time. Indeed, occasionally it has been a bit of an ugly process. Each and every one of us—those on that side of the House, those on this side of the House and, indeed, those on the crossbenches—have worked very hard to put politics aside, to work with what we have been given and to make this process work. I have to say that, while it is not always easy for a government to have such a fierce defender of private members' rights, giving so much opportunity to private members, including the opposition in this place, has been a healthy process and a breath of fresh air. It has worked because we have worked together. That is really what this debate is about: whether we want to trash all of that hard work now, a year on, or whether we want to stay with it in recognition of the hard work that has been done. I invite the member for Leichardt, who is now in the chamber and is the most senior member of the opposition on the Selection Committee, the member for Barker or the member for Berowra—they can draw straws or work it out amongst themselves—to stand and explain to the House why we should now be affording priority to a stunt, a bit of political opportunism, over the processes of the Selection Committee.
I want to express my support for everything that has been stated by the Leader of the House and those who have spoken from the crossbench. I want to thank them for their contributions. They were reasoned and sensible contributions. They were contributions that anyone in this House thinking objectively rather than in a partisan way would surely accept, but those on the other side will have an opportunity to respond to that.
The matter for Mr Thomson is complex. I take on board what Mr Wilkie has said. He made the point that maybe he should just come in here and make a short statement. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements. Indeed, he has made a number of statements—
The SPEAKER: The Chief Government Whip must go to the reasons for the suspension or otherwise.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, this is a debate about whether we should be dealing with private members' business or allowing a stunt. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements not under the cover of parliamentary privilege but outside of this place—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the debate as it has gone on has become slightly more frayed in terms of relevance to the suspension of standing orders, which sometimes happens in these debates, but when I was the first speaker I was pulled up on four or five occasions by the Leader of the House and by the Speaker. The Chief Government Whip is really making no attempt at all to be relevant to the motion before the chair. I ask you to draw him back to it.
The SPEAKER: Not only has the debate become frayed but perhaps the chair has become a little frayed too. I remind members if they are contributing to this debate that over an hour ago it started as a debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders and it is still a debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders and we should be debating the reasons for the House to suspend the standing orders or otherwise.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I think it is reasonable to say that on any objective analysis I have been far more relevant in this debate than the member for North Sydney ever was, and I think that same test would fairly apply to the member for Sturt. But let us go back to what has been happening here. The Leader of the House attempted to do what he does every Thursday and that is to move a suspension of standing orders so that private members' business can be brought on for a vote. That is the process that emanates from the Selection Committee. Then of course—very tricky as he can be—the member for Sturt did an extraordinary thing: he moved an amendment to that suspension so that, rather than deal with important private members' business, we deal instead with a stunt. That is what we are debating this morning and that is what I am talking about. I would have thought that the member for Gippsland might have made a contribution to this debate too, because this is his motion. The member for Gippsland obviously went to a lot of work: he consulted his constituency, he identified a very real problem, he took time in consultation with the clerks—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. At the end of the day the original motion was from the member for Gippsland. Even in a frayed debate, sometimes we intersect with what we are here for.
Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Gippsland, having done some research, consulted with the clerks, had a motion drafted, put it on the Notice Paper and no doubt lobbied the member for Leichhardt hard to have his matter put before the House. We know many members put motions on the Notice Paper and, despite the additional private members' time we have available to us, still there is some competition. We cannot possibly deal with all of the motions in the House. The member for Gippsland obviously lobbied members of the opposition—those who sit on the Selection Committee—hard to have his motion debated in the House. We have done that. Rather extraordinarily, opposition members on the Selection Committee decided that this was a matter that should be voted upon. That surprised me, because I thought it was a bit like putting Christmas to a vote. I do not think anyone in this House would find the motion objectionable—
Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is to bring him back to the suspension motion before the House. We know he is doing it because the Prime Minister has a press conference, and before he tells us what he had for breakfast this morning—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Tolerance is being stretched, and I remind him about the value of his vote. It might be instructive to remind members of the question. The original question was the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing orders. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion and the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Chief Government Whip has the call and he will be relevant to the motion before the House.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I certainly will be. The member for North Sydney could take another lesson in work ethics, because if he had done his homework he would know that the Prime Minister is paired with the Leader of the Opposition. It will not be necessary for her to attend the division that will be coming before us shortly. I go back to the member for Gippsland—a very fine member. I will not go through the whole scenario again, but I think we have found ourselves at the Selection Committee determining whether this very fine motion from the member for Gippsland should be debated and voted upon in this place. The member for Gippsland felt so strongly about this motion on wild dogs that he went to the members for Leichhardt, Barker and Berowra and said, 'Please, I need this to be voted upon.' I do not really understand it—it is quite a non-objectionable motion. Wild dogs are a real problem in regional Australia; I have the same problem in my electorate—
Mr Hawke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 75 refers to the Speaker's power that when a member is persisting in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his arguments or of another person's arguments, he may be directed to discontinue his or her remarks.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I was making the point that wild dogs are also a problem in my own electorate. I am very conscious of the impact
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: Now the members of the opposition are laughing—on flora and fauna, native vegetation and native animals in my electorate. They think that is funny. The member for Gippsland goes to the Selection Committee with what he claims was a serious motion. They think it is so serious and important that they not only allocate time for debate but also determine we should vote upon it in this place. Now they do two things. They try to run interference in that process and they try to deny the member for Gippsland the opportunity to put his motion to a vote—and now they laugh at the motion. It says something about their state of mind—a state of mind which is being driven entirely at the moment by what they see is an opportunity to sit on this side of the House. They are going to find themselves very, very disappointed.
The behaviour of the opposition just now proves without any question that this is a stunt and any objective member, particularly those sitting on the other side, would have to agree with those on this side and on the crossbenches that, in any contest as to whether it is more important to be dealing with private members' business in an orderly process, this motion should be afforded far more priority than a stunt from the other side which is purely about politics and political opportunities. It is about going after a member of this place who has legal processes underway and who is constrained on legal advice about what he should be saying publicly, whether in this place or elsewhere. It is all about sniffing a bit of blood. I want to close by restating my invitation (1) to the member for Gippsland to stand in this place and say he really believes that he would rather have us deal with a stunt than deal with the motion he put so much thought and effort into, and (2) to members of the opposition who sit on the Selection Committee to stand in this place, having worked so hard with me and other members from the government and the crossbenchers in getting in place these orderly processes—processes which afford private members so many rights—and explain why they are about to vote for a stunt rather than to vote for the rights of private members and the processes of the Selection Committee.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (10:14): I will endeavour to be relevant and short. As a member of the Selection Committee let me make it very clear that the opposition members support the procedures, and the suggestion that we are not committed to those procedures is false and does not reflect our views. As the member for North Sydney made very clear, I think in the most relevant comment that I have heard in this debate so far, the agreement that was made for the way in which this parliament would conduct itself did not remove the right to suspend standing orders where matters were urgent and required further attention. That is simply what we are seeking to do here.
I am not one who is unaware of the way in which this parliament has been conducted in the past. I have been the subject of untrue and false allegations made by the then opposition which were shown to be untrue and false in an inquiry that was set up by them, yet they come in and endeavour in relation to an important matter that is on the public record to say that this should not be raised by this opposition. This is no more or less than government members did when they were in opposition. Let me make that very clear.
In relation to the member's right to remain silent, I respect that. But my view is that that is something—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Consistent with your previous rulings, the member for Berowra must address why the suspension of standing orders should be carried or why the amendment to the suspension of standing orders should be supported or opposed.
The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Berowra to take that into consideration wholeheartedly as he makes his contribution.
Mr RUDDOCK: As my colleagues have before me, I will endeavour to be totally relevant to the matter that is being discussed. This is a matter of some urgency. It goes to the member's reputation. I do not think the member should be called upon to make statements if he is advised that to do so may in some way jeopardise his legal position, but I think he has an obligation to claim that right to silence. If he intends to do so, he should come into the chamber and do just that. He has spoken in other forums and I think the parliament is entitled to ask that he informs us as his colleagues.
The SPEAKER: Order! The original question was the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion. The immediate question is that the amendment by the member for Sturt be agreed to.
Question put.
The House divided [10:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Harry Jenkins)
The numbers for the ayes and the noes being equal, Mr Speaker gave his casting vote with the noes.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
The House divided. [10:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Harry Jenkins)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Wild Dogs
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the social and economic impact of wild dogs on the sheep, cattle and goat industry across Australia;
(b) the environmental impact of wild dogs preying on Australia native wildlife; and
(c) that according to the Australian Pest Animals Strategy, pest animal management requires coordination among all levels of government in partnership with industry, land and water managers and the community; and
(2) highlights the need for a nationally consistent approach to effective wild dog control and ongoing Commonwealth funding to support research and on the ground work to reduce the impact of wild dogs on regional Australians.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at a later hour this day.
COMMITTEES
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:30): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Infrastructure and Communications Committee
Report
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (10:30): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications I present the committee’s report entitled Broadening the debate: inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms BIRD: by leave—This inquiry was referred to our committee on 16 November 2010 by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP. We received 252 submissions, including 17 supplementary submissions and 42 exhibits. These submissions canvassed a range of topics related to the potential impact of the NBN, including across government services, health, education, infrastructure, research, and community and social issues. The contributions were received from government agencies, some local councils, regional representative bodies, the higher education sector, the school sector, the business sector and private individuals—a broad cross-section of community and our economy was encompassed.
There were subsequently 15 public hearings at 12 different locations around Australia based on the evidence received. It should be indicated that the hearings were held in most capital cities but also in regional areas in most states, including at Launceston, Ballarat, Victor Harbor, Townsville and Wollongong. We also did some site visits. At Scottsdale in Tasmania we inspected the infrastructure that was part of the stage 1 rollout. We visited the Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society based at the University of Melbourne and we visited some other key places, such as NICTA, Google Australia, the Telstra Experience Centre and TwitchTV in Sydney.
It should be indicated, as I said in my foreword, that only very recently we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the first commercial mobile telephone becoming available. It caused me to reflect on the last 30 years. I will simply say that I was in the later years of my high school experience at that point in time and I compared that to the experience of my own sons who are in their twenties. We had no computer in the home. There was no such thing as mobile phones available generally. We had one fixed-line phone. And we went to get our pay out from the bank at lunchtime, because that was your only option to get your money if it went into the bank. Indeed, in my part-time job I was responsible for putting pay packets together at Coles, where we had little yellow envelopes and we counted out the notes and coins and popped them into the envelopes. It brings me to consider where indeed the lives of my sons will be in 30 years when they look back at what we currently think of as an advanced use of technology.
Many of the conversations and submissions that we heard during this inquiry went exactly to that issue, about the exponential rate of change that has the capacity to transform our economies, our lives and our societies. I sincerely thank all of those people who very genuinely and extensively participated in the inquiry. I particularly recognise that across many of those areas, as the report indicates, there have been progressions and many new services and products available and utilised. We all know that from our own lives, but many of the witnesses indicated to us that they are now hitting barriers because of the infrastructure. There is a problem with the infrastructure not being uniform and ubiquitous across the nation. There are serious real and new services that they want to explore but they cannot without symmetrical services, higher speed services and so forth. It was a tremendous opportunity to have a look at that.
It should be indicated that we have made 16 recommendations, and those recommendations go to the very issue of: if we want to see the full transformative nature of this sort of very significant infrastructure in the nation, we should be looking at all opportunities to have the demand side—the uptake of that service—expanded. In particular, we go to the role that government can play as a leader in that process. We heard some good international evidence about proactive governments that are actually transforming the uptake and utilisation of modern communications services, and the importance that has to the environmental outcomes, the liveability outcomes of cities and regions and the access and equity issues for people with disabilities, for example. There are a whole lot of very profound, important opportunities there.
I will obviously take the opportunity to have more to say when we hopefully refer this matter to the Main Committee, so I will keep my comments fairly general and brief now. I am disappointed that there is a dissenting report tabled with this report. I have had a minor opportunity this morning to have a look at it. I do not think it intellectually stacks up. I do not think it is consistent, and I think it is a little bit cherry-picking of the evidence. But that is the reality of these processes. It is the sort of report that, when your kids read it 30 years down the track, they may wonder why on earth you put your name to it. But, anyway, it is the call for those involved to put in that report—and I am disappointed that it happened.
I want to particularly take this opportunity in this chamber to thank the secretary of the committee, who did an outstanding job on what was a huge task. I want to thank, in particular, the committee secretariat who are with us today: Julia Morris, Andrew McGowan, James Nelson—though James is not with us—and Tamara Palmer, who did a tremendous job in working with the committee on a very, very large and significant task. Every member of the committee always appreciates the work that the secretariat does, but on this occasion, with such a significant, huge and encompassing task to undertake, I really want to pay tribute to their professionalism and the support they gave to all committee members. I look forward to taking the opportunity to expand on that when I have a chance to talk more broadly on that matter.
I recommend the report to all of those who are interested and look forward to its contribution in broadening the debate on the NBN in our society.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (10:38): by leave—As the deputy chair of the committee, I would like to speak to the inquiry into the role and potential of the NBN. This was a very large inquiry condensed into a short time. There were 252 submissions, 42 exhibits and 17 supplementary submissions. We went to 15 public hearings in 12 different locations and did three inspections. Those inspections and outreach hearings took us to places as broad as Scottsdale, Launceston, Ballarat, Victor Harbour, Townsville and Wollongong, to say nothing of the capital cities.
It will be no surprise to the House that the coalition members of this committee are ambivalent about the NBN. We made that very clear from the outset. Having said that, it is the role of the government of the day to enact its agenda and we as members of the opposition would want to see that agenda implemented with proper probity and for the best effect for the Australian population. It is in that spirit that I talk about this report. It is not the ideal, in my opinion, on how we should be tackling this matter, but, as I said, we have to go with the government of the day.
Scottsdale was one of the first places in Australia to have the NBN rolled out. It is an interesting vignette of the problems that broadband may contain for us. There are lessons, of course. I am not saying this in any disparaging way, but there are lessons to be learnt from it. For example, 70 per cent of the people agreed to have the free boxes attached to a wall of their home, but, of that 70 per cent, only 15 per cent has connected to a service. Of course, you have to connect to Telstra, Optus or one of the other carriers. The other interesting thing we saw—and there is a lesson in this, whether you call it the NBN or some other model—was that, if you are going to install the free box, you have to think carefully about how you are going to accommodate commercial buildings. We saw examples where the owners of commercial buildings were the major tenant and they would not connect the boxes. Not only did they not have access to the service but, more importantly, their tenants did not. So, at a later stage when they want to retrofit to high-speed broadband, that will come at a cost, and I think that would be unfortunate.
I also want to talk briefly this morning about the Institute for a Broadband Enabled Society at Melbourne University. I thank Professor Glyn Davis and his team for a truly outstanding demonstration. It fired me up on the potential of high-speed broadband within the bounds of reality—the sorts of things you could do. For example, we saw a part-robotic and part-remote demonstration of how a surgeon or a professor in Melbourne could direct another surgeon, or even a GP in the case of an emergency, in one of the provincial cities like Ballarat or Bendigo. This involved having 3-D television, high-speed resolution and robotics. It is extraordinary that a doctor in one location could be virtually operating on a person in another location. That was something worth doing.
We then saw a demonstration of how, for example, a trained nurse in a bush nursing centre could examine the inside of a person's mouth—a broken tooth or something like that—in a remote area and connect to a dentist or dental specialist in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne. The specialist could say, 'This is how you will have to treat that for the time being, until we can get the man to a dentist.' In another demonstration, a person who had suffered a stroke could go through their physiotherapy activities on a machine that was linked by broadband to a capital city. We also saw some very high-speed face-to-face conference facilities done on high-speed broadband. The reality was quite unnerving. You would sit at a table barely a metre wide and swear you were talking to people on the other side of the table when they were actually 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 kilometres away. I found that very engaging. It is interesting, however, that when I asked, 'What was the maximum speed that had been employed that day in that demonstration?' the answer is that it was only 20 megabits. I think a lot of nonsense has been spoken. Perhaps we have overblown the requirement for certain speeds. I concede that universities, space technology and certain educational facilities are going to need higher speeds than 20 megabits. Equally, considering that so many people in Australia now are operating on two, three or four megabits, and that the OPEL scheme that the coalition put up at the election before last could have delivered between eight and 12, you really have to wonder why the average person would want to have 100 megabits connected to their home. I might add that that has not been the experience overseas, either.
While I was watching those demonstrations in Melbourne it occurred to me that if we are going to make broadband work, whether it is NBN or any other model, a commensurate amount of education on how to utilise it has to take place not just at the capital city end, not just in the educational and medical institutes or where the high-tech data is being stored and processed, but out in the field. The trained nurse running a bush nursing centre or the doctor in a remote country hospital must have the skills to be able to utilise this broadband. The broadband should not be an end in itself but what it can achieve. If the report does nothing else, for me it is to show me the potential of broadband properly utilised.
I will not go into other aspects of the dissenting report, to which I am a signatory. I will leave that to the member for Bradfield, who is the principal composer of that part of it. I will not steal his thunder. He can speak on that in the Main Committee. I thank the secretary of the committee, Julia Morris, and the inquiry's secretaries, Andrew McGowan and James Nelson, for outstanding work and for great courtesy and patience. What would normally have been a fairly long inquiry was condensed into a short period. It must have been a lot of work for them and I thank and congratulate them on that work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Does the member for Cunningham wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Ms BIRD: by leave—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
Report and Reference to Main Committee
Infrastructure and Communications Committee
Report
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (10:48): On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Navigation Amendment Bill 2011, together with minutes of the proceedings.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms BIRD: by leave—The Navigation Amendment Bill 2011 was referred to the committee by the House Selection Committee. The committee sought submissions from interested parties and held a public hearing to further investigate the bill.
The bill seeks to amendment the Navigation Act to bring Australia in line with the requirements of the Maritime Labour Convention. As a proposed treaty action, the MLC is being considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. As part of that inquiry process, the JSCOT heard from various interested parties, including those who were involved in treaty negotiations and who were supportive of Australia's agreement to the treaty, including the development of enabling legislation. The committee heard that those parties, including the Australian Shipowners Association and the Maritime Union of Australia, continue to support the passage of the bill. It also noted that some of the elements of the MLC will be brought into effect through regulations which were not available at the time of the bill's introduction, but the committee has recommended that the Navigation Amendment Bill be passed.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (10:49): by leave—This Navigation Amendment Bill 2011 that has been referred to the committee is very interesting both from the point of view of the parliament and of the committee. This was one of the first pieces of legislation, certainly in the transport area, that was referred to a committee under the new paradigm, so it brings that Senate overview type of activity into the House of Representatives. This was not a particularly controversial piece of legislation but there were aspects that needed to be looked at, and the committee brought in witnesses who were central to that, including the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Australian Shipowners Association et cetera.
There are two aspects to this bill. One is minor, which is to improve tracking services in the southern area of the Great Barrier Reef. That resonates with me personally because the incident that is cited in the bill is that of the Shen Neng 1, which went aground on the southern barrier reef in April 2010. It resonates with me because when it was pulled off the reef it had to be taken into some clear or protected water to be unloaded. It was decided to take it into Hervey Bay. The water mass or the maritime area of Hervey Bay, from the western shores of Fraser Island to the mainland, is in my electorate. Hervey Bay is a pristine environment, with sea grasses and various marine activities, and I, for one, was quite nervous about it. I was given the opportunity to go over the ship in a helicopter while the unloading process was carried out. Thank heavens, it was carried out effectively and without spillage. It emphasised how important the tracking of shipping going through the Barrier Reef is.
Over the years various pilots and captains of vessels have found short cuts. Where people know what they are doing, probably those short cuts are not something we should get terribly excited about. But there are other areas where it is plainly dangerous to go out of the regular channels. That was the suggestion made in relation to the Shen Neng 1. Had that vessel been so damaged that it could not be unloaded, it would have been something quite tragic. That minor amendment in the bill seeks to fix that up.
The other aspect of this bill, as the chairman of the committee has just said, gives effect to an ILO convention, the Maritime Labour Convention. That convention is fairly important, and is recognised by the whole maritime industry as very important, because it consolidates 68 different instruments of the ILO into this one convention.
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties also had a look at this, and there was a dissenting report built largely around the lack of consultation and another matter referring to whether cadets—being young guys, largely—on vessels share accommodation as part of their initial training. The MUA had some concerns about that. It was agreed that AMSA should look into that. They point out in turn that not every cadet is forced to share. Nevertheless, that one aspect is still up in the air a little. However, the committee has recommended approving this convention. Paragraph 112 of the report says:
The ASA indicates that passage of the Bill and ratification of the MLC will improve protection for workers, benefit shipowners by addressing some areas of competitive disadvantage by levelling standards of employment, and provide certainty to stakeholders that basic social standards can be enforced. The ASA describes its commitment to ratification as ‘unwavering’ and urges ratification at the ‘earliest possible opportunity’.
That is a very good overview and it is supported by the Maritime Union of Australia as well. It is important because, for this convention to take effect, 30 nations have to give assent to it. Fifteen nations have done so far, but Australia has been a bit on the slow side, and all the players in this particular activity leading up to the presentation of this bill have asked that it be expedited. The committee shares that view and the committee puts to the House in its one recommendation that the House of Representatives pass the Navigation Amendment Bill 2011. We commend the report to the House.
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (10:57): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report entitled Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission together with evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr RIPOLL: by leave—I am pleased to speak to the August 2011 report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on the statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Section 243 of the ASIC Act directs the committee to inquire into— (Quorum formed)
I would like to thank not only all of my colleagues for coming in to listen to my speech on the report but also members of the opposition who have so kindly come in to help us to attain the quorum much quicker than otherwise possible.
Section 243 of the ASIC Act directs that the committee is to inquire into and report on ASIC's activities, and matters relating to those activities, to which parliament's attention should be directed. In preparing the report, the committee held hearings with ASIC officials, representatives from the Rule of Law Institute and Professor Comerton-Forde of the Australian National University. I would like to thank ASIC for their continuing cooperation and assistance and the representatives from the Rule of Law Institute and Professor Comerton-Forde for the additional insight they provided.
The hearings in June 2011 were the first opportunity for the committee to speak to Mr Medcraft in his new role as chairman of ASIC. Mr Medcraft explained to the committee how ASIC's activities are guided by a strategic framework with three priorities: confident and informed investors and financial markets, fair and efficient financial markets, and efficient registration and licensing. Guiding the development of this framework are four key factors—namely, legislative responsibilities, systemic or regulatory risk, stakeholder expectations and government policy.
The committee notes, with approval, ASIC's approach to the development of its strategic framework and particularly approves ASIC's commitment to identifying areas of potential risk. On the basis of the information provided to the committee, it is apparent that ASIC recognises the importance of the commission's educative role in promoting prudent and fully informed self-regulation by market participants. The committee considers that the suite of financial literacy initiatives that ASIC provides is a necessary part of promoting confident and informed market participation and is a key tool to assist gatekeepers and investors to self-manage their activities.
The committee was also pleased to hear of the formation of ASIC's Emerging Risk Committee. There is clear merit in the continual analysis of the system to identify areas of potential risk. Such analysis is a core element of maintaining and improving Australia's financial system that is part of ASIC's legislative objectives. This will be an area that the committee will focus on at future oversight hearings.
In turning to supervision of the stock market, a key priority for the committee is to track the transfer of responsibility for supervision of real-time trading on Australia's domestic licensed markets from the Australian Securities Exchange to ASIC.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! Could those at the table have their conversation a little more quietly so the member for Oxley could be heard. Thank you.
Mr RIPOLL: ASIC previously advised that, since the transfer of responsibility, the time from problem identification to formal investigation has decreased. The committee is particularly pleased to see that this trend has continued and trusts that it will continue to do so in the future. It will form the basis of ongoing inquiry.
It is clear though that there are other emerging issues that may affect the performance of Australia's domestic licensed markets, including dark pools, high frequency trading and white-label or indirect brokers. We are extremely interested in these and other areas of potential risk and so will continue to seek ASIC's assessment of emerging risks, and the development of regulations to address them. To assist with notifying the market about risk, the committee considers it appropriate for ASIC to continue to publish six-monthly reports regarding the Commission's supervision of markets and participants.
In relation to Australian financial services licenses, the committee continues an interest in this particular area. The awarding of and subsequent use of Australian financial services licenses continues to be a significant focus for the committee. The committee was informed that the Corporations Act contains a presumption in favour of granting applicants an Australian financial services licence and that sometimes there is a perception that some inappropriate people are granted one of these very special licenses. However, on the basis of evidence provided to the committee, it was not clear that the presumption in favour of granting a licence does undermine market integrity in any particular way.
What did concern us was the potential for misperceptions, amongst investors and consumers, of the significance of an AFSL, which may result from licensees claiming their product or advice is ASIC approved—the moral hazard in having the ASIC approval stamp on a product, when having that licence or stamp does not in any way give any favour to approval or otherwise of the merits of that particular product; it only shows only that the product complies with regulation and law. For this reason, the committee has recommended in this report that ASIC amend its website to include an explanation of the meaning and significance of holding an Australian financial services licence and what that means to people making assessments about the people who hold them, the type of investments they make or the recommendations that may come from people who are the holders of an AFSL.
In conclusion, the committee holds its next hearing with ASIC in October and looks forward to the opportunity to discuss these and other issues further. I would like to particularly thank the secretariat for their assistance in preparing this report and other reports and their ongoing good work in the complex and sometimes difficult matters that the committee deals with.
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (11:06): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Human Services portfolio at Greenway, ACT.
Mr GRAY: The Department of Human Services proposes to undertake a fit-out of a new leased office building being constructed in Greenway. Australian Capital Territory. The new building was originally intended to accommodate the National Support Office staff and facilities of Centrelink. In accordance with the government's Service Delivery Reform Program, which the then minister for human services announced on 16 December 2009, Centrelink, Medicare Australia and other portfolio agencies were integrated into the Department of Human Services with effect from 1 July 2011. The new building is therefore now intended to accommodate staff from across the department.
The building will enable about 90 per cent of the department's national office staff to co-locate in the Tuggeranong town centre precinct. This will enable the department to relinquish a number of smaller, and in some cases, substandard leases around the ACT. The building will be purpose designed and built and will be fitted out with about 1,747 work points. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $38.55 million plus GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed fitout works are scheduled to start with designing in August 2011 and to be completed, including certification, by June 2013.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. The developer commenced base building construction in mid May 2011. The building is expected to be ready for occupancy by the end of June 2013. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (11:08): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at 55 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane, Queensland.
The Australian Taxation Office proposes to undertake an integrated fitout of new leased premises at 55 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane, Queensland. The new premises will replace two existing ATO locations in the Brisbane CBD. The lease for the existing properties would expire in June 2013 and February 2014. It is expected that the relocation into a new building will provide the ATO with considerable advantages in terms of building design, operational performance and operating cost efficiencies, and long-term viability through improvements in site infrastructure. The estimated outturn cost of the proposal is $33.1 million plus GST.
In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed integrated fitout works are scheduled to start in May 2012 and be completed by 1 May 2013. The developer commenced base building works on site in May 2011 with demolition and excavation for the basement areas being the first tasks. The ATO is expected to take up occupancy of the building in May 2013. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:10): The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011 does recognise that there should be a transfer of certain functions from the Australian Taxation Office and APRA to Medicare Australia, and following on from what the Minister of State at the table just talked about with the redesign of Human Services, I can say to you that nothing would be more emblematic of the redesign of Human Services than the fact that Medicare Australia is now providing back office superannuation processing. When I was the first Minister for Human Services back in 2004 and when I created the department, I would not have thought that it would ever have these sorts of functions or that it would totally incorporate Centrelink and Medicare. I must admit that I am agnostic at best about the thought that that integration should have occurred, but it is what it is and my colleagues have explained their position on it.
I would like to state at the outset that the coalition will not be opposing this bill. As with many bills that come into this place, we work together, contrary to some perceptions. This bill amends the law relating to superannuation. It transfers responsibility, as I said, from administration of early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds from APRA and the Australian Taxation Office to the chief executive of Medicare. This change will be of assistance to Australians who have already been granted early release of superannuation on medical grounds. These people would already be in regular contact with Medicare and it will reduce the number of government agencies with which they will have to deal. This change makes sense as Medicare Australia already undertakes the general administration associated with processing of early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds. It is expected by the government that there will be little additional cost associated with this change.
Amendments to the regulations under a number of acts will be required to enable the chief executive of Medicare to administer the early release of superannuation. Firstly, it is APRA which currently administers the regulations under the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 which make the determinations on whether an amount of benefits in retirement savings accounts may be released on compassionate grounds. This responsibility will now be handed to the chief executive of Medicare, and I just reflect on the fact that it was the coalition that established retirement savings accounts back in 1997 to provide some level of comfort to people who had had multiple jobs at the time and wanted to have a single, consistent superannuation account. That was the background, in a sense, to the retirement savings accounts.
Secondly, APRA currently administers regulations under the SIS Act, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. These apply to APRA regulated entities where funds may be released on compassionate grounds. Responsibility for administration of this will now be handed, again, to the chief executive of Medicare. Finally, the Commissioner of Taxation currently administers regulations made under part 3 of the SIS Act and determinations about whether benefits paid in self-managed superannuation funds will also be transferred to the chief executive of Medicare.
In providing support for this bill, I would emphasise that the coalition does not support any changes to the rules which determine whether superannuation can be released early on compassionate grounds. This is a very important point, because essentially there has been bipartisan agreement on having very strict rules about the early release of superannuation. It is often the case, as members of parliament, that people come to us and ask, if not beg, to have early access to their superannuation on the grounds that they have temporary financial troubles or due to an event that has occurred.
Accessing superannuation must be the absolute last resort, because that money is meant to get you through the days when you are essentially unable to work full time and fund your quality of life, and a dollar saved in superannuation today can represent multiple dollars in the future. The coalition supports the government's call that the limited circumstances for early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds be preserved and the criteria for early release not be changed. Superannuation must remain the savings for retirement, and it should only be in extreme circumstances that the funds can be withdrawn.
This week in the House the Assistant Treasurer ran through the government's proposal to increase the compulsory superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent and criticised the opposition's lack of support for this initiative. His criticism was misplaced and obviously rather political. The coalition strongly supports superannuation. Compulsory superannuation is a key pillar of a system which, along with the age pension and the incentives and voluntary savings, helps all Australians to prepare for a reasonable quality of life in retirement. The coalition will continue to support changes that make our superannuation system more efficient, transparent and internally competitive and that deliver better value to superannuants across Australia. In particular, sensible changes to streamline super fund operations and to strengthen corporate governance arrangements should be progressed by the government as a matter of priority. My colleague Senator Mathias Cormann, in the other place, has said that on numerous occasions.
Having said that, we do not support the proposed increase in compulsory superannuation as it stands as part of the government's offset to the mining tax. That is because it will be funded by the increase in the mining tax and the coalition is opposed to the mining tax. We have said before that, as it stands, we will rescind it in government and we will unwind the expenditure linked to it. Rather than increase compulsory superannuation, our preference is to look at other areas of voluntary savings to complement the nine per cent in compulsory super. We have been very concerned about the lack of trade-off. Although the former minister for finance was more willing than the current minister to state that the increase from nine to 12 per cent would come out of business rather than out of the net salary of workers, the fact is that the government has not been clear on where the extra three per cent is meant to come from. Is it meant to be a trade-off for increased wages? Will employees have less money to take home? Is it going to mean a greater cost burden on small business in particular?
This is a very important point, and I suspect what heavily influences it is employment pressures. If the unemployment rate is around 4½ to five per cent then of course there is greater pressure on employers to stump up the extra three per cent. But, should there be rising unemployment, this may well represent a further incentive for employers to reduce their workforce, because this increases the cost of employing people. Alternatively, and perhaps even more realistically, increasing compulsory super with a rising unemployment rate may well mean that people will have less money to take home. Given that the government are introducing a carbon tax and have in place a flood levy, and given that they will not pay for the $4.2 billion black hole associated with the carbon tax—a $2.9 billion hole this year alone—I would say that the Australian people know, and they are instinctively right, that when the government cannot make their sums add up they inevitably go back to the Australian people to try and make up the money.
Instead of forcing workers to defer extra wages, the government should be focusing on improving the performance of the super industry, although competitive pressures themselves should do that. It should not be up to the government to improve the performance of the industry; the industry should be competitive enough to do it itself.
We are looking at, and considering carefully, a number of different areas of superannuation in the lead-up to the next election. For example, the coalition will make sure that the process of selecting default workplace superannuation funds under modern awards is open, transparent and competitive—something that the government promised to do but failed to deliver. The Henry report identified that nine per cent superannuation was a sufficient level for compulsory super guarantee contributions but recommended a series of changes to the taxation of superannuation. Dr Henry made the point in the report that increasing the superannuation guarantee beyond nine per cent would most heavily impact on low- and middle-income earners. The additional burden of the payment would not be borne by business but would, rather, be funded by reducing the growth in take-home pay. So more of a worker's income would be put aside in superannuation rather than be paid today. Effectively that means that there would be a reduction in the take-home pay of the lowest paid workers if they had this increased contribution. That was Dr Henry's take on it. He is now a special and rather privileged adviser to the Prime Minister.
Out of all that, where are we? Before the 2007 election the Labor Party promised not to change superannuation laws. It, of course, broke that promise by changing the rules regarding concessional super contribution caps over the last three budgets. Labor halved the concessional contribution cap from $50,000 to $25,000 for Australians under the age of 50. Australians under 50 can no longer save over $25,000 in superannuation each year without being charged excessive tax rates. Labor also halved the concessional contribution cap from $100,000 to $50,000 for Australians over 50 years of age. The changes for over-50s have particularly concerned older workers nearing retirement. The changes have discouraged them from making sufficient contributions late in their working lives. These changes were simply made as a revenue measure; they were not made for any other reason. This government is a big-tax, big-spend government. Wherever it can get money and then go and spend it to control people's lives it will do so.
One initiative the coalition will support is the Cooper review recommendations for improving the administrative efficiency of the super industry. These initiatives are collectively called SuperStream. SuperStream is a package of measures designed to improve the back office of superannuation. It proposes the increased use of technology, uniform data standards and the tax file number as a key identifier of member accounts. That is a good thing. The coalition's support of SuperStream is consistent with our commitment to facilitate improvements in industry efficiency.
Another area where the government action is welcome, although overdue, is in changes to excess contributions tax penalties. ATO figures reveal that more than 65,000 Australians will be hit with penalty tax after inadvertent breaches of the concessional super contribution caps during the 2009-10 financial year. The problem obviously has escalated during 2010-11. Since 2007, Labor has collected $180 million in excess contributions tax at an estimated administrative cost of $60 million to the Australian Taxation Office.
In the 2011-12 budget the government announced that it will provide eligible individuals with the option to have excess concessional contributions taken out of their super fund and assessed as income at their marginal tax rate rather than incurring the tax penalties. Well done. The measure will apply where an individual has made concessional contributions of up to $10,000 in a particular year. It is only available for breaches in respect of 2011-12 or later years, and only for the first year in which a breach occurs. The coalition says this is common sense. However, I do recognise the efforts of my colleagues Senator Mathias Cormann and the member for Casey, who have been prosecuting the arguments.
Returning to the bill before the House, the transfer of administration responsibilities for the early release of super on compassionate grounds from APRA and the ATO to the Chief Executive of Medicare is a reasonable change. The coalition will not be opposing this bill.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:26): I speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011. About 20 years ago, the Keating Labor government introduced one of the most significant economic reforms in the history of this country, the superannuation guarantee, which started at three per cent. It increased progressively to the current level of nine per cent, where it has stayed since 2003.
I was listening to the member for North Sydney's contribution in relation to this bill. It took me back. His forebears used the same arguments opposing Labor's reforms with respect to superannuation. In fact, all the way through, the idea of compulsory superannuation was denounced by the coalition as a job-destroying, antibusiness measure and a damaging, economy-destroying measure. Compulsory superannuation was opposed fiercely even though it would create financial security and dignity for older Australians. These are the same sorts of arguments that we hear today: 'We're all ruined,' is what they say—constant fear and smear.
That is all wrong, of course—wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact, in the year the nine per cent superannuation was introduced and in the years since, unemployment fell, productivity was higher and small businesses were started and prospered. The truth is that we have a superannuation sector worth about $1.4 trillion in retirement savings, which means that Australians will be able to enjoy income security in their retirement.
(Quorum formed) The coalition are truculent, obstinate and belligerent with respect to superannuation. All they do is oppose every reform. They took no policy into the last federal election campaign to increase superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent. The shadow Treasurer comes in here today and says that they will find it through savings. They could not find the savings to rebuild Queensland. It took them weeks to do that. Then they ended up with the One Nation playbook in relation to foreign aid to find it, which would have left a black hole of $1 billion in the budget if their policies on the flood levy had been adopted. That $1 billion black hole would have been on top of the $11 billion black hole they took to the last election. They reckon they will find the savings for it. They will not find the savings for it. They should be supporting Australians in their retirement. They have opposed every superannuation reform we could possibly have.
The shadow Treasurer does not even know why we are doing this. The review of this matter undertaken by the Treasury, by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and by the Department of Human Services found Medicare Australia to be the agency best placed to carry out this function. He does not even know that. He has not even looked at the review. He says, 'We are not opposed to it.' We know that some opposite are in support of an increase in superannuation for Australian workers. Federal politicians get 15.4 per cent. Why shouldn't the Australian public get an increase? Some 43,500 people in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland would get an increase in superannuation. They would get more money when they retire. This is important.
This reform comes as a result of a review. We are undertaking significant reviews in relation to these matters. This is a two-stage process. Since 3 February 2011 Medicare Australia has been performing this function under delegation from APRA. That was the first stage. The second stage will take place when this bill is given effect to and formally transfers the functions from APRA to Medicare Australia. This is an important reform because there are efficiencies here and we have customer service obligations. It will assist in better managing electronic business transactions.
Over $122 million was released on compassionate grounds in the year 2010-11, with an average of $11,316 being released on compassionate grounds. The circumstances in relation to compassionate grounds include: medical treatment, medical transport, modifications necessary for the family home or a motor vehicle due to severe disability, palliative care and funeral expenses. Funds can also be released to prevent the foreclosure of a mortgage or exercise the power of sale over the member's principal place of residence.
In relation to self-managed funds, the Commissioner of Taxation is the appropriate person. What is happening here is that, in relation to other superannuation, the general administration of superannuation funds on compassionate grounds that currently resides with APRA will be transferred to Medicare Australia. I think that is an appropriate reform because we have seen the benefit of Medicare Australia and the Department of Human Services in my electorate of Blair. When Australian people go through hard times they need to access some of the funds in their superannuation. In January 2011, when my electorate was devastated by the floodwaters from the Wivenhoe Dam, the Lockyer Creek, the Brisbane River and the Bremer River, my electorate office had numerous requests from residents to get access to their superannuation to assist them to move back into their homes and to help them to rebuild their homes. I had dozens of calls and requests from residents who wanted assistance through their superannuation funds. There were families and individuals who lost their homes in the floods—there were 3,000 homes in Ipswich and about 600 in the Somerset—and 279 agribusinesses were also damaged. They had been fighting insurance companies for months and had often been rejected. They needed a bit of a helping hand.
When dealing with the emotional trauma of evacuating their families and wondering how they could rebuild and move on they had to deal with myriad bureaucracies with various requests for information and different conditions of assistance and support. It was traumatic and it traumatised those people yet again. I know the benefit of the Department of Human Services. The Green Army was so important. The flood recovery people who wore dark green T-shirts and the people from Centrelink were symbols of hope for people. They were giving a helping hand and providing financial assistance. Most of those who turned to their superannuation funds for assistance either were declined or simply gave up because the process of applying on compassionate grounds was anything but compassionate. I need to stress that those residents in flood affected Blair would not necessarily have been able to access their funds courtesy of these amendments. The criteria for assessing early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds will remain the same. But putting this responsibility into Medicare Australia in the Department of Human Services I think creates a compassionate response. These are people who know how to deliver services and whom people who have been flood affected and are in hardship can identify as the people who provide help to them every day, every week, every month and every year.
This is not to say that APRA has not been an effective prudential regulator. But it does not have the support platform that Medicare Australia does to deal with clients—the shopfronts, call centres, customer support professionals and the like. And Medicare is more effective at dealing with people. This is why on 1 July 2011 we formed a new Department of Human Services—and it really is a new entity in many ways—to integrate Medicare, Centrelink and child support services. This is a key component of the federal Labor government's commitment to and focus on delivering services efficiently and effectively and making the whole service more client focused. I think that is good for people in my electorate. In Ipswich we are very fortunate to have a one-stop human services shop, effectively combining Medicare and Centrelink with the Local Connections to Work. I have seen firsthand the benefit to individuals and families as a result of this focus on clients rather than bureaucracy.
As a function of the Department of Human Services, it is my hope, and it is certainly my expectation, that Medicare will take a more benign and charitable approach to those wishing to access their superannuation early on compassionate grounds. Medicare personnel are already dealing with Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink personnel. They have better access to information to assess the needs of people. There are structures, systems and personnel in place to deal with them. Medicare has the experience, as I said, in electronic business transactions, and there is considerable technological infrastructure to process claims, and I saw that firsthand in January with the floods. There is significant potential to streamline this procedure, with the ultimate beneficiaries being people across the country, and certainly people in cyclone and flood affected Queensland.
Superannuation has been a concern of the Labor Party for 20 years. We have been strongly committed to compulsory superannuation. Those opposite mouth the words, but we have seen the history of the coalition parties: they have been opposed to superannuation reform, from their forebears in the 1990s all the way through. The key reform to increase superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent will make a very big difference. With an ageing population it is vital to ensure that Australians have enough money to retire on in the future. And, given that life expectancy is increasing and retirement is more an experience of decades rather than of just a few years, nine per cent is simply not enough and we need to go to 12 per cent. This is especially the case for women, who often have child-rearing breaks in their careers and have a longer life expectancy than men.
It is simply a shame and a disgrace that the coalition had no policy in the last election with respect to increasing superannuation and have steadfastly opposed, for 20 years, increases in superannuation. They have put the retirements of millions of Australians at risk and forced taxpayers to pay more for the aged pension.
We believe that this is an important reform. This amendment is just one of the steps that we are taking to make sure that superannuation continues to meet the needs of Australians in the future. It should be welcomed across the country and will certainly be welcomed in my community.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (11:41): I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011. As speakers before me have said, this is really only a shifting of the deckchairs on something of a Titanic. In reality, the move of the administration of superannuation early release from APRA to Medicare may claim to have some streamlining benefits, but it does not address part of the key issue for people who are applying for early release and delays in having that approved. In the Bills Digestfor the bill, it says that in 2009-10 there were 16,331 applications and 10,539 approvals, the total amount being just over $111 million, or about $10,544 per account.
That is not the issue. On the criteria for early release of superannuation, which are not addressed by this bill, the Bills Digest says that superannuation benefits generally cannot be accessed before 55 years of age, and I think that that is good in general terms. It goes on to say:
In some specific circumstances, persons are able to apply to their superannuation fund/retirement saving account provider for the early release of superannuation benefits, including financial hardship, permanent incapacity (permanent and total disability), terminal illness, where the preserved benefit balance is $200 or less, and in cases of permanent departure from Australia.
It also goes on to say:
Superannuation benefits may also be released early on 'compassionate' grounds by application to APRA for superannuation and retirement savings accounts or by application to the Commissioner of Taxation for Self Managed Superannuation Funds. The changes proposed by the Bill relate only to the administrative arrangements for applications about early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds.
It does not address the key issue. It further says:
The circumstances under which an application for the early release on compassionate grounds can be granted are specified in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 and Retirement Savings Accounts Regulations 1997 and include:
to pay for medical treatment or medical transport for the person or a dependant—
and I want to emphasise that because I will come to it in a minute—
to enable the person to make a payment on a loan, to prevent:
foreclosure of a mortgage on the person’s principal place of residence
and it is important that I also highlight that—
or
exercise by the mortgagee of an express or statutory, power of sale over the person’s principal place of residence
to modify the person’s principal place of residence, or vehicle, to accommodate the special needs of the person, or a dependant, arising from severe disability
to pay for expenses associated with the person’s palliative care, in the case of impending death, and
to pay for expenses associated with a dependant’s palliative care, in the case of impending death, funeral or burial.
I wanted to speak on this bill due to a number of representations that I have made on behalf of constituents on concerns raised by them. I will not go into individuals' names. The minister is aware of these, because I have had responses back from Minister Shorten. One was a person in Woodbury who struck severe personal and financial hardship. Her house burned down and her granddaughter was killed. She was unable to access money to repair the house as, I understand, it was not insured. She wanted to be able to access her superannuation so that she could at least keep the property and undertake some repairs to it. As I understand it, an application was put in last year. In February representations were made to the minister because she was not having any joy. I received the response from the minister on 5 July. By the way, that person has now lost her house.
These conditions by which people can supposedly access their superannuation in times of financial hardship are an absolute farce. The lady is not my constituent, by the way—she is the member for Newcastle's constituent but found no joy there. Here is a case where a lady has lost her granddaughter and her house in a fire. Subsequently, because of her economic situation and not being insured, she has lost the property on which that house stood because she could not meet the payments. Had she been able to access the amount that she had in superannuation, it may have been different. This bill does not address part of the core issues.
I received a massive number of representations arising out of the global financial crisis when the Labor government sought to protect the deposits in the four major banks. The flow-on effect of that was that businesses such as Colonial First State Investment and AMP Capital Enhanced Yield Fund froze the finances they had. People who had their money invested in those and other funds found their funds were frozen because of the rush on those funds arising out of the government's ill considered bill and an absolute refusal to think through the process and the ramifications of their actions. People had no income coming to them by which to live, they were denied social security because they had the money held in these funds and they were not sure whether these funds would collapse. We are not talking about huge amounts of money. For most of these people it was a small amount. This has led to situations where people who are applying for relief are starting to lose their homes because banks are foreclosing.
The response from the minister on the various submissions that we made to him on behalf of these people who were applying under financial hardship was basically, 'This is a problem of the global financial crisis.' In his letter he referred to all the reasons for which a person can access their superannuation and then turned around and said that it was a problem created by the global financial crisis and that it was just tough luck. I say this to the minister: the problem was not created by the global financial crisis; it was created by your decision to provide an unlimited guarantee on bank deposits. The coalition put forward a bill limiting that guarantee to $100,000. The unlimited guarantee saw a rush from investors in these funds withdrawing their money to put it into the banks. What you did was cause a collapse in that financial market. Whether it is APRA or Medicare, because of your integrity as a minister and your lack of action and understanding of these situations, you placed these individuals into financial hardship. You placed them into situations whereby their houses were in jeopardy. In fact, in one of those cases—and I will read from this person from Forster's letter without mentioning their name—they had $19,304 in one account with Colonial First State and $34,179 in another and they needed to access it. I will read from their letter:
After I retired aged 60 in Dec. 2009 Colonial advised us that these accounts were frozen due to the G.F.C. However as my husband was diagnosed in February this year with advanced renal cell cancer & bone cancer and is no longer able to work we will again attempted to close these accounts as they return only approximately 2%.
But they could not get access to their capital. Did they meet the over-55 criterion? Yes. What about financial hardship because of medical condition or life-threatening illness? I would say that if you have advanced renal cell cancer and bone cancer the long-term prospect for you is not as good as it could be. This government and APRA failed those people in this situation and that is disgraceful.
So it is not a matter of who will administer this, whether it is the head of Medicare or in part the Taxation Office or in part APRA; it is about having people that act and respond to avert the crisis that is occurring by these people not being able to access their money. At the end of the day it is those individuals' money. I know we need in superannuation to protect their investment as much as we can and we need to make sure that it provides for their retirement, but the actions of this government cost people the ability to access that money, even though they complied on a number of counts. I have another letter, this time from a person in Raymond Terrace. This and the other letter I read out are just a couple that I grabbed, instead of grabbing a huge ream of them, on the way out of the office to make this speech. This letter is about superannuation funds held by the AMP capital enhanced yield fund . This person needed to get access to the $25,000 of his superannuation that he had invested in the fund. The letter reads:
I have been diagnosed with prostate cancer and during the past five years have been having treatment for this terrible disease. These funds would assist and be vital for the medical expenses etc. which will be ongoing.
As I said at the very start of my speech when I talked about the criteria in the legislation, if money is to be used for life-threatening medical expenses, its withdrawal should be approved. But the responses from this minister have been absolutely appalling—letters written in May and responses received in August. In a letter to me of 9 August about the representation by the person whose letter I just read out, the minister said:
Frozen accounts stem from the ongoing turmoil in international financial markets. While Australia has weathered the financial storm better than any other developed nation in the world, the global financial crisis is still having a significant impact. As a result, some investment funds are still having difficulty attracting fresh investment inflows.
Because of this, many funds have not had sufficient liquid assets or cash to be able to pay out redemption requests and those funds have chosen to put a freeze on redemptions as allowed under law, until the liquidity position of the fund improves. The decision to freeze redemptions is one taken by each individual fund and is not a decision taken by Government.
Minister, the decision to freeze the fund came about directly because of your unlimited guarantees of deposits with the four majors. This caused the flow of cash from these investment houses to the major banks as people naturally went to protect their financial returns. Minister, you have not only failed this nation economically but also failed these individuals, who, in their hour of absolute need, needed access to their money either to save their life through payment for proper and expedient medical assistance or to save their property threatened by circumstances beyond their control. Withdrawal of funds to do either of these things is completely within the guidelines listed in the legislation. Minister, you have failed those people, and for that you should be condemned. It is a good idea to control the money in question by moving it to a single house such as Medicare, but we need to see fast and responsive action to genuine claims so that people can access their money as per all the criteria stated in the legislation and avert long-term situations which always end up negative.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (11:55): I am pleased to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011. I have already made some comments on this bill, but I made them in another form: a report made in my role as Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. This is a non-controversial bill—it is about acknowledging a practice that currently exists and tidying up the legislation.
The bill proposes to move the responsibility for the administration of the early release on compassionate grounds of benefits in a retirement savings account or of superannuation benefits in an entity regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority from APRA to the Chief Executive Officer of Medicare. Similarly, the bill proposes to transfer the general administration of the early release of superannuation funds on compassionate grounds from the Commissioner of Taxation to the Chief Executive Officer of Medicare. The bill formalises an arrangement that has been in place since 3 February this year, when APRA and Medicare Australia entered into a service delivery agreement for Medicare Australia to carry out the day-to-day functions of the administration of the early release of superannuation in APRA-regulated superannuation entities under delegation from APRA. At the same time, the day-to-day functions of the administration of the early release of superannuation and superannuation funds under delegation from the Commissioner of Taxation was transferred from APRA to Medicare Australia.
There is no extra cost associated with this bill. Part 2 of schedule 1 of the bill amends the APRA Act 1998 so that the industry levy associated with the administration of the early release of superannuation benefits currently paid to APRA can be properly transferred to Medicare Australia to meet administrative costs. To support this arrangement, APRA officers were transferred to Medicare Australia in February this year to undertake the administration of the early release function.
The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for consideration. The committee supports and endorses moves to formalise the interim arrangements that have been in place for over six months now, and after consideration of the evidence the committee agreed not to inquire further into this bill and recommended that the House pass the bill—it is non-controversial. This bill is simply a formalisation of arrangements that are currently in place, and I recommend it.
(Quorum formed) In respect for my colleagues, rather than give them the full 15 minutes I had left of my speech, can I just say that this is a good amendment, it is a good bill. It actually is supported by the other side. As to why they would want to interrupt the debate, I am not sure. I recommend the bill to the House.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (12:01): The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011 will transfer the responsibility for administration of the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds from APRA and the ATO to the Chief Executive of Medicare. This is a bill that the coalition does not oppose and, given that the bill also effectively transfers the relevant component of fees currently collected by APRA from APRA regulated funds to cover the cost of administering the early release of superannuation to Medicare, there should be no budget or financial impact on Medicare.
As noted, the bill transfers the responsibility for administration of the early release of superannuation. The administration of the early release of superannuation may not have sat well with APRA's role as the prudential regulator. Certainly, as the member for Paterson very rightly pointed out earlier, the time taken to process applications and get payments made—I know, from my previous experience as a financial adviser—has taken significant periods and has created additional financial burdens for the people involved. In view of that, it is probably quite appropriate that this function is administered by an agency that has other elements of income support and an efficient customer support infrastructure.
The circumstances under which superannuation can be released prior to age 55 is clearly defined in the SIS Act and allows, in specific circumstances as defined, people to apply to their superannuation funds or retirement savings account provider for the early release of their superannuation benefits. Early release of superannuation benefits may be applicable for people facing financial hardship, permanent incapacity, terminal illness, where the preserved balance is $200 or less and in cases of permanent departure from Australia. The provision where the balance is $200 or less was used a number of times in my practice, because it is one less thing that people had to worry about and it saves a lot of administration costs for superannuation funds for those small account balances, which frequently get lost or misplaced.
Superannuation benefits may also be released early on compassionate grounds by application to APRA for superannuation and retirement savings accounts or by application to the Commissioner of Taxation for self-managed super funds. This bill will not change that. The changes proposed by the bill relate only to the administrative arrangements. Some of the things that superannuation can be released for under compassionate grounds include payment for medical treatment and transport for a person or a dependant; enabling a person to make a payment on a loan in the event of possible foreclosure of a mortgage on a person's principal place of residence, or exercise by the mortgagee of an express or statutory power of sale; or to modify a person's principal place of residence or vehicle to accommodate the special needs of the person or a dependent arising from severe disability. It can also be released to pay for expenses associated with palliative care in the case of impending death and to pay for expenses associated with dependants with palliative care needs in the case of impending death, funeral or burial.
The member for Paterson very rightly pointed out some of the issues with these regulations. It is important to note that, while individuals may apply to APRA for the early release of superannuation benefits on the compassionate grounds that I have just listed, a superannuation fund trustee or retirement savings account provider ultimately decides what benefits they will or will not release, subject to the governing rules of the fund. As the member for Paterson also pointed out, in the global financial crisis there were a number of people, even those who had passed age 55, who had extreme difficulty in having funds released from their superannuation accounts because funds were frozen.
In assessing applications for the early release of superannuation, APRA is required to adhere to specific assessment criteria, and it is important that that process is properly followed. That is where we find that a lot of the time is taken up in getting the process completed. The applicant does have the ability to appeal a decision and, if they are not satisfied, they may request an internal review by an independent APRA delegate or an external review of the process by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. But, at the end of the day, if the superannuation fund trustee or the retirement savings account provider decides that the funds are frozen, people seeking access to those funds will still not be able to get those funds.
A concern with respect to the proposals in this bill is that there does not appear to have been any great public announcement prior to the introduction of the bill. Certainly, the financial planners that I still deal with and speak to inform me that they did not have any idea that this had been proposed or was on the drawing board. That is a major issue of concern: the lack of information in an industry that would be primarily responsible for dealing with clients in this situation.
As the member for Oxley pointed out, it appears that Medicare Australia has been managing these claims since February 2011 under delegation from APRA. I have not been able to find where the details of this delegation have been made public, including the amount of funding transferred to Medicare Australia to enable it to perform this task. Given that this is a government that apparently prides itself on openness and accountability, that is a serious issue of concern. There is no information in APRA's annual reports, or in other public resources, on the value of the revenue raised by the levy that APRA currently charges on superannuation funds under its regulation, so we cannot verify that the amount of money being transferred to Medicare to provide these additional services is in reality sufficient for what they require. It is important, given the increasing range of non-health related programs that Medicare Australia is now administering, that it is adequately resourced financially to meet this increasing workload. An example of other increased services provided by Medicare Australia is its assumption of responsibility, since July 2010, as the small business clearinghouse for superannuation—again, a service that the majority of small businesses that I have spoken to did not even know about. It is shown in the figures that less than one per cent of small business have taken up the service.
Given the stringent guidelines surrounding the early release of superannuation benefits, it is important that Medicare Australia is properly resourced and staff are properly trained, as many people who are seeking early release of superannuation funds are facing stressful circumstances and require compassion and understanding when dealing with this difficult issue.
As I noted at the outset, the coalition does not oppose the bill, but we trust that this transfer of responsibilities is implemented smoothly and in an efficient manner to minimise any impact on people who may be seeking to access their superannuation benefits. Given the track record of this government over the past four years, we have some serious concerns, and the issues that the member for Paterson raised earlier in terms of responses from the relevant minister also raise concerns.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (12:10): I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011. In the current economic times, the value of people's superannuation is a constant conversation in workplaces, around dinner tables and at social gatherings throughout Australia. People are very concerned. For many people the only exposure they have to the share market is through their superannuation fund, while others have both private investment and superannuation in stocks and bonds. That is part of the reason the current market volatility is being watched—specifically by those who are close to or at the point of retirement—so closely around the country and why the calculators are out, with people trying to work out the impact on individual accounts and the amount they have available to them. In fact, Australians are extremely concerned about exactly what their superannuation will be worth when they need it.
In the past few years, all forms of financial advisers and accountants have constantly dealt with concerned clients and new clients—people who, for the first time, are taking a direct interest in their superannuation. It is in this environment we find ourselves discussing superannuation legislation in the bill before the House. As we know, the bill amends the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to facilitate the transfer of the administration of the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to the Chief Executive of Medicare. Generally, as we know, superannuation cannot be accessed before you are at least 55 years old. That is so that Australians can fund themselves in retirement. However, in some very specific circumstances, the law allows the early release of benefits that are held in a retirement savings account or superannuation benefits in an APRA regulated entity.
Also, the bill transfers the general administration of the early release of superannuation benefits in self-managed super funds on compassionate grounds from the Commissioner of Taxation to the Chief Executive of Medicare. In most circumstances, these benefits are taxed. Even though the government gives permission to access superannuation early, the super fund trustee does not have to release those benefits to the individual concerned. The superannuation fund trustee or RSA provider decides what benefits they will and will not release and may charge fees for the early release of the funds. This is a concern to some of my constituents. Several of my constituents have needed to access part or all of their preserved benefits and savings prior to actual retirement for a range of compassionate reasons covered by this bill. It is never an easy decision. It is often a decision of last resort, according to the circumstances that people find themselves in. Generally, a constituent and their spouse, partner or dependent children are in extreme distress and under a great deal of personal as well as financial pressure when they have to make this decision. They may be suffering from a medical problem. It may be a life-threatening illness or an injury. They may be desperate for the funds to alleviate acute or chronic physical pain or be suffering from acute or chronic mental conditions, and that makes this process quite difficult. They may need it to pay for medical transport, which is really a major issue in regional and rural areas such as those in my electorate. It is a critical issue, made worse for people who live in very small communities, in isolated areas or on isolated properties. They might live in a very small community or on an isolated rural lot, and they will have to deal with this issue of medical transport. Increasingly we are finding that there are people who may not have relatives or friends to assist them at that time, so the issue of medical transport in regional areas is a very important one to the people affected.
Most of these circumstances, for people who find themselves in this position, are totally unexpected. It is a real shock for the person affected and for their whole family. It is always extremely difficult to manage and, of course, you do not really plan for this—you do not expect it to happen. It depends entirely on each person's individual circumstances as to what they are facing and what their financial situation is. It is for these sorts of reasons that some people need to access their retirement savings to prevent mortgagees from selling their homes, for example, because of overdue loan repayments, something I have certainly seen an increase of in recent years.
The early release of superannuation funds and retirement savings can also occur on compassionate grounds to fund the funeral expenses or palliative care that often follow the instances I mentioned previously. If a person or one of their dependants is severely disabled, he or she can apply to access their superannuation or retirement funds if this disability requires their home or car to be modified because of the disability. For those who have lost their jobs or who are in extremely difficult financial situations—and I would think many members in this House would, like me, have dealt with people who have found themselves in that position in recent times—it can be a difficult situation and they may also be able to access a portion of their benefits, subject to certain conditions. This can be that they have been receiving Commonwealth income support, such as unemployment benefits, for at least 26 continuous weeks and the trustee of their super fund is satisfied that the person cannot meet their immediate family expenses. This adds to the pressure that the individual finds themselves under. A payment is for the purposes of meeting everyday living expenses and can be one payment of no more than $10,000, including tax, in any 12-month period. The other condition is that when the person has reached their preservation age they may be able to receive their entire superannuation benefit, provided that they have received government income support for at least 39 weeks.
It is reasonable to suggest that a body that understands income support, such as Medicare, would be able to judge the compassionate needs of superannuants in the situations that I have mentioned throughout my speech. As such, the move to make the Chief Executive Officer of Medicare responsible for the administration of the early release of superannuation is understandable. Given that this has been in effect under a delegation agreement since February this year, this bill will simply formalise existing functions. The transfer of fees collected as a levy to manage this administration will be progressed, but again, as the member for Forde and the member for Paterson said, we do not have information as to whether these fees will be sufficient to allow the administration that is required to be conducted efficiently by Medicare in this instance.
Many members will, like me, have been approached by constituents who have only limited superannuation as they approach retirement. We know that over the last 10 years the top-performing superannuation products are returning on average around five per cent. Many people who are now close to retirement are focusing particularly on the amount that is in their superannuation funds. There are those who have seen the value of those superannuation funds diminish. It has caused a number of people to investigate how they could make these funds more secure, because the volatility of the market has seen the value of those superannuation funds erode.
My office would be similar to many others, with a number of constituents looking at where their funds are currently invested, how they are invested, what they are worth, what the changes to them are and how those changes are going to impact those people. It is a particularly relevant issue for people who are facing retirement in the immediate sense. The value of these superannuation funds is particularly critical to them. On that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your time.
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (12:21): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011 because, like many members who have spoken on this bill, it has particular relevance to operations within my electorate and impacts a number of people. Let me say at the outset that superannuation is a very valuable tool for people's retirement. There is much debate on whether it should be nine per cent or 12 per cent et cetera, but it is obviously designed to provide retirement income for many Australians as compared to the pension, which is not a lifestyle remuneration but a safety net. That is why superannuation is so important. This bill does change the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds in two ways. It transfers the responsibility for administration of the early release of super on compassionate grounds from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA, and the Australian Taxation Office, or ATO, to Medicare and it transfers the relevant component of fees currently collected from APRA-regulated funds to cover the cost of administering the early release of super by Medicare without any financial impact. This bill does not affect the criteria for early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds. This is important to my electorate because Canning has 40 per cent of voters aged 55 or above. It is quite an interesting demographic. Fifty-five years is the general minimum age that the early release of superannuation payments can be applied for. As we know 55 is not old—I am 58, which is not old at all; in fact, I suspect it is the old 35—but it is the trigger point.
I do not oppose the release of superannuation on compassionate grounds and I do not necessarily oppose the restructuring of the channels through which these moneys are distributed. But there must always be a sense of caution. My office is quite often contacted by people within the electorate saying: 'Look, I am in dire straits. If I don't get access to my superannuation funds, I'm going to lose my house.' There is a whole range of issues such as health care: someone has contracted a terminal disease, they need the funds for medicines et cetera. They are all genuine cases, but the word of caution is: should the funds be released without a lot of scrutiny, which then leaves nothing left for retirement? I suspect if you are not going to be here then it is not going to be any use to you, but if you get an early release of funds and that is all you have then it does not say much for the quality of life you are going to have some years later.
Another reason why I am cautious about this bill, and we do not oppose it, is the impact it is going to have on Medicare services. This government obviously is giving more responsibility to Medicare. We know that is the mechanism that the flood levy was going to be collected through. We had Centrelink as a one-stop shop, now Medicare will be a one-stop shop. The problem with that is Medicare will continue to be under continued pressure.
I am sure that members of parliament in this House would agree that whenever somebody has a problem with a government department, because it is too difficult for the officer at the front desk to give them a straight answer or is not the answer they might be looking for, they come to us as their elected representatives. We always get the too-hard basket ones. You know they have often shopped around before they come to us as members of parliament.
In the coalition government, the member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, was responsible for public administration. In the case of Centrelink, he appointed electorate liaison officers. It really was fantastic. When Labor came to power they got rid of them. However, if you had a problem with Centrelink—and this is what I suspect the government might want to look at in loading more responsibilities onto Medicare—you discussed it with an electorate liaison officer and this person had the authority to sign-off. It stopped a mountain of paperwork and a mountain of delays because we had an electorate liaison officer in the local Centrelink office that we could go to and have problems solved. How sensible was that? They did not spend their whole time on it, they were doing other duties, but we had a go-to person.
People say, 'Oh, yes, but there are government liaison people in Medicare you can go to.' No, these electorate liaison officers were specifically assigned to our electorates and they knew our electorates. They were quite often in Centrelink offices within our electorates, so they knew the turf, they knew the people and they knew the issues. As a result, we could get some very good results for people who did not want a paper war—a letter to the minister, a reply that came back, essentially written by the department in any case, which said, 'Computer says 'no'', which meant we then had to take the lobbying process even further. I want put on the record that, as a result of loading up Medicare, this could be an alternative if the government really wants to ease the burden.
We know that the areas of responsibility shifted to Medicare include the administration of the Home Insulation Program on behalf of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and setting up the clearing house arrangements for small business—more extra duties for Medicare—yet the government's position on private health industry insurance is to limit the desire of people to have private health insurance. We know the government has tried several times to take away the private health insurance rebate. The effect of that will be to force more people onto the public health system. It will load up public health and the rebates and all that goes with it.
Yesterday, I stood in the courtyard here with other members and senators from Western Australia because the health insurer HBF had collected 32,000 signatures on a petition from their Western Australian members in a month saying that if the government, in conjunction with the Greens—we know the Greens have a particular view on this as well—were to remove the 30 per cent rebate, it is going to force many people off private health insurance and back onto the public health system. As a result, and we know anybody who goes to hospital or a doctor will be treated one way or another, it will load up the public system. In effect it is a cost-shifting mechanism. The effect of trying to do this is expected to cost an extra $3.8 billion to the public health system. In turn, this will put more pressure on these related services. For Labor to deny this is totally untrue. You cannot believe them. I will not use the three-letter word, but I can say it is not true. The health minister, Nicola Roxon, clearly stated in a media release dated 26 September 2007:
… on many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including … the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians
What have the government done? They have tried to change that three times at least. It is a bit like: 'There will be no carbon tax under this government I lead. I have my fingers crossed behind my back; please believe me.' Research by the Australian Health Industry shows that under Labor's proposed health insurance rebate changes, 175,000 Australians would drop private health cover—putting pressure on the public health system, and putting pressure on Medicare, which is the office meant to deal with this early release of superannuation. Minister Roxon was forced to admit on 16 October 2008:
The projection of the number of people from Treasury that will drop out of health insurance is just under half a million—492,000 people.
And the Australian newspaper on 24 June 2011 reported:
MORE than 2.4 million Australians with private health insurance will be forced to find up to $935 extra a year for their premiums if the government can manoeuvre its means test for the 30 per cent rebate through parliament …
In fact, I have received correspondence from constituents who are very concerned about this issue as I speak today. Even they can see that Labor's proposed changes would increase private health insurance premiums, and put more pressure on the public health sector and systems like Medicare—but this is the agenda of the government.
I have a particular view on superannuation. As I said, I am very supportive of those who need a release of superannuation on compassionate grounds. Those who need early release for those reasons should be well heard, but with the caveats that I have put on it. But we have a massive amount of money tied up in superannuation funds throughout Australia. You have heard the dulcet tones of the former reserve bank governor, Bernie Fraser, 'Come to my industry fund and put the money in there so that we can purloin your money and help our organisation.' I say: use the money wisely. One of the ways I would like to see it used wisely, from a personal point of view and a policy point of view, would be for some of it to be released for first home buyers. Not young people necessarily; parents could get access to a deposit for their home through all this money tied up in superannuation. After all it is their money. If they can grow it by buying an asset like a house why should they not be given that sort of opportunity? That is my personal view, which is nothing to do with coalition policy, but there is a massive amount of money tied up, particularly in the hands of industry funds, which have a different agenda from some others, and it could well be used in a more effective way in the future.
In conclusion, the government does not have a competent record on administration. As I have said, what a farce the BER was. What has happened to the set-top boxes that were announced in the budget? Who is going to administer the set-top boxes? Is this going to end up in one of these departments as well? How many people are going to get a set-top box in one of the wackiest policies that this government has ever put out? Who is going to administer that? Is this going to go through Medicare as well? I have to say that in terms of public policy the people who thought that up were obviously the same people who thought up putting pink batts in your roof and how to burn down your house in a short while! At the end of the day I am not aware of anyone in my electorate who has come to me and said, 'I want a set-top box.' In fact, if you gave me a voucher for $300 or $400 I would probably go and buy a plasma TV or something at Harvey Norman but not a fancy set-top box.
As I have said, I agree with the need for early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds. Certainly, these payments are important and help people in often financially and emotionally tough situations. I do hope that the administrative changes will not cause any further costs or pressures to our healthcare system, as I have outlined, and Medicare services or any duress to administering payments to the people who need them most.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (12:34): I rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011, which the coalition does not oppose. This bill deals with the administration of the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds. I stress the point that it is the administration. In reading the bill I find that it does not speak of changing the wording or the intent. It does not speak of making the process for applying for early release of your superannuation any easier, it just shifts the administration from one body to another.
The bill transfers the responsibility for administration of early release of the superannuation on compassionate grounds from APRA—the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority—and the Australian Taxation Office, which I will refer to as the ATO, to the Chief Executive of Medicare and allows APRA to include the cost of administration of this early release by Medicare in the annual levy it charges for superannuation funds. The rationale for the transfer from APRA and the ATO to Medicare as given in the explanatory memorandum is that this scheme is best administered 'by an agency that has other elements of income support and an efficient customer support infrastructure'. Predominantly what that means is that Medicare has more outlets around the nation—there is more accessibility to frontline staff—as opposed to dealing with APRA, who I am sure are competent but their areas of expertise probably do not include the frontline specialist skills that we require.
Before I go on, let us look at some of the comments we have heard from previous speakers who took the opportunity to drift into the topic of increasing superannuation amounts from nine per cent to 15 per cent. One of the examples that they brought up was that as a government we should not deprive the Australian people of an increase to 15.4 per cent because that is what the politicians get—why should we get it and not let the general public share the same superannuation levy? That is economic ridiculousness. Why not go one step further and say that everyone should be on the same money that the Prime Minister is on? This is the same economic rationale that that argument brings to this House.
The reason that these comments would be raised, in fairness, is that very few people from the other side of the House actually have any concept or fundamental understanding of how small business works, and this is where the cost would be borne in an increase from nine to 15 per cent superannuation. It would be borne by business. While the government says that there would be a one per cent decrease on their tax, from 30 per cent back to 29 per cent, I suggest that there is only so much money available in a business to try to make ends meet and when you have to trim costs, often one of your variable cost line items is your staff. So I fear that the silliness of the economic rationalism being used could potentially put Australian jobs at risk and I would encourage people to tread carefully when considering flippant increases to 15 per cent.
I also remind the government of the enormous pressures on small business and families at the moment with the basic cost-of-living pressures. One must consider the outrageous increases in energy costs since 2007. Don't shake your head, they have gone up. I have seen it at home—50 per cent they have gone up!
Mr Hartsuyker: Shame!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Shame! So do not shake your head, because you get energy bills as well!
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Mate, I love your work! So there are cost-of-living pressures—energy prices, gas prices—and these are all inhibitors on the Australian economy at the moment. Our fuel prices have gone through the roof.
And while we talk about economic vandalism and listen to some of the comments we have heard in the House with reference to the superannuation debate, I bring the attention to the flippancy with which this government refers to the 7.2 per cent of our GDP debt ratio as being relatively small in comparison with other nations. I suggest that the argument that it is relatively small compared to other nations begs the question: why is it that we cannot pay that back? Why is it that we are having so much trouble servicing—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is a bill on superannuation and I ask the member to return to the bill.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Absolutely. It is strange to hear the words 'efficient' and 'infrastructure' used in conjunction with this government, because to date its record has been one of inefficiency almost across the board. From the pink batts debacle all the way through to the NBN, this government in all cases has managed to take the most inefficient approach possible.
While there are special circumstances in which superannuation can be accessed, including medical conditions and severe financial hardship, the Australian tax office has recently noted that a number of schemes are promising customers that they can help access super for reasons such as paying off credit card debt, paying bills, buying new cars or even going on holidays. Last year around 1,300 people were sprung by the Australian Taxation Office for participating in such schemes. I would like to remind anyone considering involving themselves in one of these dodgy schemes that not only are the schemes illegal, but they will also cost you a whole lot more than you expect and you could even potentially end up in jail.
In the current economic climate, while we remain vulnerable to the tremors and quakes currently disrupting global markets, while cost-of-living pressures are squeezing every last spare dollar out of ordinary hardworking families, while the government is planning on adding to the pain with the introduction of its illegitimate and pointless carbon tax—in times like this—it is no wonder that more and more people would be looking to get hold of their super. That is the point I was making earlier with reference to cost-of-living pressures. That was the point I was making about people wanting to get access to their superannuation just to make ends meet. I make the point that electricity prices are up 16 per cent, after going up another 10 per cent from the year before; gas is up 18 per cent, after a 13 per cent jump last year; and water is up 16 per cent, after another 13 per cent last year; and it just goes on and on.
In Queensland, power bills alone have increased by more than 60 per cent in less than five years. That is the point I was making earlier. What do you reckon will happen when the carbon tax kicks in? Is it any wonder that we are seeing more shonky operators out there trying to take advantage of people who are looking at the smashed remnants of their piggybanks and wondering what they are going to do next? Things are undoubtedly tough at the moment and when times are tough people want to know that their government is exercising the same sort of restraint and fiscal responsibility that they are having to undergo in their household budgets.
I also want to bring your attention to a case that we are dealing with in our electorate office at the moment that is relevant to the early release of superannuation. I am fearful that we will continue as a nation to see more and more examples like this as people try to get access to their savings funds. One of my constituents is a lady who has a small marketing business based in a regional part of the electorate. Regretfully, our constituent—and a wonderful woman she is—is suffering from cancer. Her illness takes her away from her business, and like most small businesses, as we on this side will understand, often you are the CEO as well as the truck driver, the sales team, the marketer, the accounting department and customer service. One- and two-man-band teams have huge pressures on them. Because of her illness, she has been unable to work, but the cost pressures still land at her feet. The cost pressures of the tenancy agreement that she has for her building, the cost pressure of leases on vehicles, and the cost pressures of the continuing commitment for photocopiers, fax machines and phones still exist. Often when these small businesses enter the market to try to contribute to the economy of the nation they also have to service a business loan. Often that business loan is secured by the family home, the very home which they have worked their entire lives for. So illness has grasped this lady, and she is struggling to get access to her superannuation.
As I alluded to in my opening comments, this bill does not inhibit this case because the loopholes in this legislation are not touched. The bill only speaks to the transfer of the administration. The point I make is that I am very fearful that there will be many more Australian small businesses—many more mums and dads—who, as cost-of-living pressures are put upon them, will be drawn to try to access their savings from their superannuation.
Under circumstances such as these, I believe it is worth while to reflect on the ways in which members of the public can gain early access to their superannuation. The circumstances under which benefits may be released are, quite rightly, extremely limited. The first of these, and one covered by this bill, is an early release on compassionate grounds. In most cases, compassionate grounds refer to an applicant who needs the money to pay for medical costs associated with life-threatening illnesses and/or acute chronic pain and/or acute or chronic mental illness. However, these grounds rely upon the necessary treatment not being readily available through the public health system and not being covered by any applicable private health insurance or workers compensation.
Compassionate grounds may also be considered to prevent the family home being sold by the lender with whom the applicant has a home mortgage. There are numerous further conditions, chief among which is that the applicant's mortgage must be sufficiently in arrears for the lending institution to have decided to sell.
In some circumstances provisions can also be made for assistance to meet palliative care costs and for the costs associated with funeral, burial or cremation. There are of course other circumstances under which people can apply for the early release of superannuation, including severe financial hardship. However, as they are not part of this bill, I will not go into them today.
Nevertheless, the rules and regulations surrounding the early release of superannuation are fiendishly complex and there is no guarantee of success. In fact, of the approximately 16,000 applications received in the 2009-10 financial year, only 10,000 were approved. Approval ratings over the past three financial years are somewhere around 65 per cent. That is why we on this side of the House are pleased that this bill will finally allow applicants to deal face to face with professional customer service staff who will, hopefully, make the process significantly less arduous and significantly less stressful than it previously has been. As I said in my opening comments, the coalition does not oppose the bill. The bill deals with the administration of the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds, and we support it.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (12:48): I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the broader context of superannuation. The shadow Treasurer today confirmed in the House of Representatives debate on the bill that the coalition support superannuation. In fact, shortly after 11:10 am, the member for North Sydney told the House that the coalition strongly support superannuation. But if one wants to make the large, grandiose statement of intent then surely the time has come for the shadow Treasurer to answer some questions about what support by the coalition actually adds up to.
If the coalition really support superannuation, what are their plans to increase every Australian worker's superannuation savings? For instance, do they support the Gillard government's plans to lift the universal superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent? Do they support an increase in concessional caps for people over 50 which allows people to boost retirement savings without incurring excess contributions tax? If they support superannuation, do they support providing 3½ million Australians on incomes under $37,000 more superannuation by refunding their contributions tax? Sixty per cent of the beneficiaries of this measure are women. Given the profits of Australia's biggest resources companies and the records that are being set—the most recent today reported by BHP—why is it that the coalition will not support an MRRT which would help fund an increase in retirement savings of 8.4 million Australians, including 55,300 in the shadow Treasurer's own electorate of North Sydney?
If the coalition mean what they say, if the coalition actually strongly support superannuation, then it is time for those questions I have just enumerated to the House to be answered. I am prepared to provide every member of the House details of how many people in their electorate are set to benefit from an increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. The coalition have promised time and time again that they would provide a response to the Henry review recommendations on superannuation and thereby release a retirement savings policy. It is now well over a year since the Henry review was released. There are many more questions about the coalition's retirement savings policy—or should I say lack of a retirement savings policy by the coalition—than there are in fact financial service businesses in the shadow Treasurer's own North Sydney electorate—and there are, of course, many of those in that electorate.
This past Saturday, 20 August, we celebrated the 20-year anniversary of one of the great economic reforms of the modern era in Australia: the announcement in parliament of the tabling of the bill to lift compulsory superannuation from three to nine per cent. Superannuation works. We do not mind the coalition supporting it; we do not even mind them owning some of the achievements. We just wish that whenever they had the opportunity to vote for improvements in superannuation they would actually do as they say. Superannuation works; it has proven to be an idea in the best interests of the nation. It is a policy that is in the best tradition of what Labor governments should do.
The economic history books record that the introduction of compulsory superannuation coincided with the rise of all the major economic indicators. I reassure the member for Wright about his concerns. Somehow he viewed this as a tax on business. Throughout the period of the increase of superannuation from three to nine per cent in each increment, it was shown that it did not increase business costs and that it was offset against real wages movements. For workers, it was not a tax on them either, because what it allowed was compulsory savings that they might not have otherwise been able to make and which would have an anti-inflationary offset on the other wage increases they were receiving at the time of the mandatory increases.
I believe that in 2011 it is time for us to improve the rewards of hard work and to allow Australians to reach out confidently for the goal of lifetime income security. I believe that people who work hard all their lives should be able to view the prospect of retirement with some degree of comfort and certainty about the adequacy of the income that they will have saved. Given that the great gift of the 20th century is increasing life expectancy for Australians in the 21st century, and given that retirement now is much more an experience of decades for Australians than the experience of a few years, nine per cent is simply not enough. This is especially the case for women, who may have breaks in their careers to raise families and who indeed have a longer life expectancy than men.
This is why the Gillard government is committed to raising compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. Lifting the rate means that an employee aged 30 today on average weekly earnings will retire with an additional $108,000 in superannuation. A female aged 30 today on average weekly earnings with an interrupted work pattern could retire with an additional $78,000 in superannuation. Why on earth would any political party in this place want to encourage the idea that Australians should work hard their whole lives and then face retirement in an income environment which does not provide for an adequate replacement rate? (Quorum formed)
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 91, I point out to all members of the House that the decision to pull a quorum on a minister when they are closing on important legislation just demonstrates how reckless this opposition is and how determined it is to destroy the standards of this place for its own political purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I note the Government Whip's comments. I call the Assistant Treasurer.
Mr SHORTEN: This is why the Gillard government is committed to lifting the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. The bills deal with the formal transfer of responsibility for the general administration of the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds. The responsibility currently resides with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The transfer is simply a change to the administrator of the function of determining eligibility for early release. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr SHORTEN: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
Report from Main Committee
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) (12:59): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Work Health and Safety Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:01): I rise today to speak on the Work Health and Safety Bill. This bill seeks to implement a harmonised system of work health and safety measures across the Commonwealth to ensure that regulations and codes of practice are similar in each jurisdiction. The importance of harmonised OH&S laws has long been recognised as a critical area of regulatory reform and, indeed, it should be acknowledged that the process of harmonisation of Australia's numerous OH&S laws was commenced by the Howard government in 2006. In February 2008, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council agreed that the use of model legislation is the most effective way to achieve harmonisation of OH&S laws. The Commonwealth and each of the states and territories subsequently signed the intergovernmental agreement for regulatory and operational reform in OH&S at a meeting of COAG, which committed jurisdictions to implement the model laws by December 2011. The model bill is intended to be mirrored in all jurisdictions. Separate bills will be introduced into each jurisdiction's parliament to give effect to the model bill.
The coalition is supportive of the intent of the legislation because we agree with the principles of harmonisation. However, we have some concerns about this legislation, and I would like to touch on these now. Our concerns lie with the removal of the control test and the removal of the right to remain silent, along with the regulations. I will address the latter first—the removal of the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. Prosecution under OH&S laws are criminal matters. Under normal criminal law, everyone has the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. That is, you cannot be forced to say something to an investigator—the police—unless the investigator first obtains a court order and so on. This protection is a right we all have and is essential to community confidence in our criminal justice system and the rule of law. It stops abuse of power. Protection against self-incrimination is currently available under OH&S laws in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. The model OH&S laws take away the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. This will apply not only to employers but also to all managers and workers in workplaces. It will grant powers to OH&S inspectors that are not even available to the police. I will be putting forward an amendment to the Work Health and Safety Bill to remove this provision.
The other area that the coalition has concerns with is the failure to include the term 'control' in identification of duties of care. The modern principles of OH&S were first created in the UK in 1972 under the Robens review. The principles hold that responsibility for safety is allocated according to what is reasonable and practicable to control. These are internationally accepted benchmarks embedded in International Labour Organisation conventions, to which Australia became a signatory in 2004. ILO convention 155, article 16, states:
Employers shall be required to ensure that so far as is reasonably practicable the workplaces, machinery, equipment and process under their control are safe and without risk to health.
The national review into OH&S laws, reported on 1 October 2008, stated that there was much dissent in submissions over the inclusion of the word 'control' in duties of care. Recommendation 8 called for the removal of the word control from the definition of reasonable and practicable. This is implemented in the national model OH&S laws.
The model laws also introduce a new and untested legal concept of connecting duties of care to a person conducting business or undertaking. The removal of the word 'control' not only creates confusion over who is responsible for what in work safety but is a major shift away from known OH&S principles in all Australian jurisdictions, except New South Wales. Further, it removes a key element of the ILO OH&S conventions to which Australia is a signatory and creates a legal vacuum due to unknown application and interpretation of duties of care under a new concept. It is reasonable to expect that with the removal of the word 'control' legal uncertainty will occur and will require many, many years of judicial testing before clarity is achieved. OH&S legislation must not just operate with legal clarity; the wording of the act must give unambiguous signals in clear layperson's language to everyone involved in a workplace. People understand in a practical sense that if they control something, or even share control, they are responsible. With the word control removed, clarity and focus on personal responsibility for safety is diminished and becomes confused. This works against the objectives of achieving safe workplaces. There is another issue that I would like to touch on regarding these bills—an issue that I have a great interest in—and that is the issue of training. Training in occupational health and safety is always an important issue. At this time of transition to new arrangements, the availability of courses is vital, but unfortunately the availability of accredited courses has been reduced by 26 per cent since restrictive changes were introduced by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission in 2010. In order to facilitate transition and ensure the availability of training courses, I will put forward an amendment to the transitional and consequential amendments bill enabling the continuance of courses accredited in 2006-07. Currently the change made supports union training at the expense of private providers, with no beneficial outcomes.
I am a bit confused today because if you believe what the Prime Minister says then this piece of legislation has already been introduced and passed. In the leaders' debate in the election, when asked what her biggest achievement was, the Prime Minister said:
Perhaps less transparent to the Australian people: getting new occupational health and safety laws. Laws around the country. Businesses have been complaining for 30 years that they have different obligations in different states and at the same time not every individual worker had the same safety standards. Now, I have delivered that.
That is what the Prime Minister said in her year of decision and delivery. It is another example of the misunderstanding by this government of the fact that you may announce that you have started a process, may be involved in a process or may even have great interest in the process, but you have not actually achieved the outcome that you seek until you have done the hard work.
So the laws passed previously were not unanimous. The Prime Minister did not in fact oversee harmonised OH&S legislation, as New South Wales Labor and the Greens refused to play ball and sought to modify the legislation in the upper house. So the Prime Minister should blame her own side in New South Wales for the changes to the model bill. However, I believe she has been fairly silent on the topic, oddly enough. In essence this means that a business in my home town of Albury would have to apply a different set of laws from a business just across the river in Wodonga in Victoria.
The coalition recognises—of course we do—that the harmonisation of OH&S legislation, in line with COAG's national reform agenda, intends to reduce the regulatory burden on business and provides for a more consistent approach across jurisdictions. We will not oppose the bill, but we urge the government, the minor parties and the Independents to consider our amendments which will be moved shortly, which seek to very much improve this legislation.
There is one area that I do want to comment on, coming from the coalition senators' dissenting report on the Work Health and Safety Bill, and that concerns voluntary organisations. There would not be a member of this House or of the other place that has not spoken about the valuable work that voluntary organisations do in their electorate or their state. The volunteers that we come into contact with on a day-to-day basis inspire us, amaze us and need as much recognition and support as they can get. I agree with the coalition senators who found it very disturbing that there is still no clarification on the extent to which, or how, the Work Health and Safety Bill will apply to these voluntary organisations. It is absolutely vital that they have this certainty as they go about their important work. So the coalition senators recommended that the federal government provide clarity as to the impact of the Work Health and Safety Bill on voluntary organisations.
The last thing we want to do with our local voluntary organisations who help, whether with fire, flood, roadside stops on 'take a break driver' days, your school P&C, cooking or helping out at a show—the range is amazing—is to scare them away from doing the things that the community desperately needs them to do. Already they are struggling under incredible regulation—a jar of jam with every single tiny ingredient listed, with food-handling ticks in boxes and with paperwork to back it up, or people having questions that need to be answered about processes. On and on and on it goes. That frustration is incredible. Imagine the doubt, fear and concern that will be in the minds of the people who join these voluntary organisations that somehow they would be held responsible for accidents or incidents that happen in a workplace, would be considered to be in control of something where they clearly have no control and would be persecuted as a result. That is going to be another reason why they might choose not to join, not to help and not to provide their support in their local communities. I do seek some clarity on the issue as it applies to voluntary organisations, and I look forward to coalition amendments later in the day.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:12): Work health and safety is a very important issue, and all in this House are agreed on that matter. The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 seeks to implement the model Work Health and Safety Bill within the Commonwealth jurisdiction and will form part of a system of nationally harmonised occupational health and safety laws. We in the opposition will not oppose this bill; however, we will move some amendments, as the member for Farrer has just outlined, designed to broaden the options for training, to improve protections against self-incrimination and to improve clarity of operation through the inclusion of the term 'control'.
We support the principle of harmonisation. The importance of harmonised occupational health and safety laws has long been recognised as a critical area of regulatory simplification, and indeed the process of harmonisation was commenced by the Howard government. The Commonwealth and each of the states and territories signed the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety, which commits the jurisdictions involved to implementing the model laws by December 2011, following the Workplace Relations Ministers Council meeting in February 2008, which agreed that the use of model legislation was the most effective way to achieve the harmonisation of OH&S laws. The model bill is intended to be 'mirrored' in all jurisdictions, with separate enabling bills to be introduced into each jurisdiction's parliament to give effect to the model bill. As I noted earlier, there are some concerns about this harmonisation. These concerns relate to the removal of the control test, the removal of the right to remain silent and the provision of training. We do note that the bill has undergone several rounds of scrutiny and has been agreed to by most state governments, but not by Western Australia. It should be noted the New South Wales version diverts significantly from that which was agreed, thanks to New South Wales Labor and the Greens.
OH&S training is always an extremely important issue and at this time of transition to these new arrangements the availability of courses is vital. The reality is that, since the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission introduced restrictive changes in 2010, the availability of accredited courses has been reduced by some 26 per cent. In order to facilitate transition and to ensure the availability of training courses, we will be seeking an amendment that will allow continuance of courses accredited in 2006-07, thereby allowing private training providers to provide the necessary training services and not to be excluded from the process, to the benefit of union training, for no identifiable beneficial outcome.
The bill states that any prosecutions under OH&S laws will be criminal matters. In our legal system and under normal criminal law, everyone has the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. That is, you cannot be forced to say something to an investigator unless the investigator first obtains a court order and so on. This protection is a right we all have and is essential to community confidence in our criminal justice system and rule of law. It stops abuses of power. The current OH&S legislation in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria all contain this protection against self-incrimination. This new national legislation should contain the best provisions of the current laws, not the worst. The model OH&S laws take away the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination. This will apply not only to employers but also to all managers and workers in workplaces. As a consequence, OH&S inspectors will gain powers that are not even available to the police.
Another aspect of this legislation that engenders concern is the exclusion of the word 'control' in identification of duties of care. The modern principles of OH&S safety were first created in the UK in 1972 and these principles hold that responsibility for safety is allocated to what is reasonable and practicable to control. These benchmarks are internationally accepted and are embedded in International Labour Organisation conventions to which Australia became a signatory in 2004. ILO Convention No. 155, article 16, states:
1. Employers shall be required to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the workplaces, machinery, equipment and processes under their control are safe and without risk to health.
The national review into OH&S laws, in the report on 1 October 2008, stated that there was much dissent in the submissions over the inclusion of the word 'control' in the duties of care. In fact, recommendation 8 called for removal of the word 'control' from the definition of reasonable and practicable. This has now been included in the national model OH&S laws covered in this bill.
The removal of the word 'control' not only creates confusion over who is responsible for what in work safety but is a major shift away from known and accepted OH&S principles in all Australian jurisdictions except New South Wales. It also results in the removal of a key element of the International Labour Organisation OH&S conventions to which Australia is a signatory and creates a legal vacuum due to unknown application and interpretation of duties of care under a new concept. As the member for Farrer rightly pointed out, this may well lead to many years of legal wrangling to determine what the final outcome will be. It is reasonable to expect that, with the removal of the word 'control', legal uncertainty will occur and, as I have just noted, will require many years of judicial testing before clarity is achieved.
OH&S legislation must not just operate with legal clarity. The wording of the act must give unambiguous signals in clear, lay language to every person involved in workplaces. All concerned understand in a practical sense that if they control something, or even share control, they are responsible. With the word 'control' removed, clarity and focus on personal responsibility for safety is diminished and becomes confused. This works against the objective of achieving safe workplaces and starts to reduce some of the beneficial impacts of the move to a national set of OH&S laws, which in its intent is admirable as it will reduce costs to business and consequently provide benefits to both business owners and the employees.
We will always support moves to simplify regulation and make it more cost effective for businesses to go about their day-to-day activities. We are also very mindful of the fact, as I noted at the outset, that the safety and protection of employees whilst they are at their workplaces is of paramount importance.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:22): I rise to speak in the debate on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011. Five workers die aboard an unseaworthy vessel in the Torres Strait. Six motorcycles used for work are found to be unroadworthy in the Northern Territory. Camp food containing peanuts is fed to a camp attendee with a severe peanut allergy in Victoria. Two members of the public die on a rail access road and bridge in South Australia. The thing that each of these situations has in common: they are all part of the Commonwealth's health and safety jurisdiction—the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia Post, the Department of Defence and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, respectively.
It is far too easy to cast the Commonwealth health and safety jurisdiction as one populated by Canberra public servants working at their desks day in, day out. But the truth of the matter is that there are a diverse range of jobs undertaken by Commonwealth public servants and in the Commonwealth's health and safety jurisdiction. The Commonwealth jurisdiction is unusual. It is not geographic. Commonwealth public servants perform important work all across Australia. They perform their work, in many cases, side by side with people covered by state and territory health and safety laws. The way that Australia's health and safety laws operate now makes things confusing for workers and for businesses. What laws apply when? Who is covered? Who is owed an obligation?
The Gillard government is moving towards a harmonised system of health and safety legislation and regulation to remove the duplication and confusion that exist when there are 10 separate pieces of health and safety legislation. (Quorum formed) I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010
Consideration of Senate Message
Debate resumed.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph 84F(1)(e), substitute:
(e) for the income year ending on 30 June 2011—$7,941; and
(ea) for each of the income years ending on 30 June 2012, 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014—$7,500; and
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), omit "1 July 2010,".
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 20), omit "1 July 2010", substitute "1 July 2011".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22), omit "1 July 2011,"
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women) (13:27): I commend the amendments from the Senate. This is about making sure that the most disadvantaged children in Australia also have access to our massively expanded childcare budget. I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:28): Today Australian families have been slugged with another cost impost, with the government and the Greens decreasing the childcare rebate. Senator Hanson-Young should hang her head in shame. In a media release the Greens issued recently, Senator Hanson-Young is quoted as saying:
We would be extremely concerned about any changes to the childcare rebate that would make it harder for families to access affordable Early Childhood Education and Care … services …
Guess what, Senator—you have just voted in legislation to do exactly that.
I have accepted that the Labor government has no concern for families, that the Labor government does not understand the pressures that ordinary working Australian mums and dads, carers and grandparents are under. But I really have to question just how concerned the Greens are for the welfare of Australian families. 21,000 Australian families will now be worse off thanks to this appalling decision by the government and the Greens. Families will be almost $700 a year worse off. This $700 a year hit to families reminds me of the 700 pages of draft regulations which childcare centres are desperately trying to get their heads around for the government's national agenda. As childcare centres grapple with these changes to their staff ratios and staff qualifications—changes they are hopelessly unprepared for—their fees are being pushed up and their minister is continuing to disparage the sector, citing bad quality as the reason for these changes. This is a fail, a 'not yet competent', by this government and this minister and a real double whammy for families—fee increases at the same time as the government is desperately clawing back money from parents.
I understand there was a considerable amount of misinformation flying around the Senate yesterday and on Tuesday when this bill was being considered. It appears that all ALP members and senators are willing to take on the minister's figures as fact, but it is absolutely not true that childcare fees will only rise by 57c a week. I have evidence of centres having to raise their fees by between $18 and $25 a day in order to meet these requirements. One of these centres is council run and, as such, runs on a cost-neutral basis. I have visited many centres around the country and I can assure the parliament that they are first-rate to begin with, and these cost imposts come as a result of the new regulatory framework.
Gwynn Bridge, who is president of the Childcare Alliance, has noted in today's Australian that childcare fees are 'set to rise by between $12 and $22 a day next January'. This is the sort of research we can trust and it is backed up by the evidence of the calls that are coming to me and to other members on this side of the House. I am sure they are also coming to members on the other side of the House; perhaps they are just choosing to ignore them. The research that was undertaken at the coalface, talking to the people who actually care for our children, yet the government persists in relying on outdated research and academic studies that fail to take into consideration the real cost ramifications of running a childcare centre in the real world. Both the government and the Greens are happy to ignore this reality. They have sold out Australian families—families who are already doing it tough.
I understand that the minister believes families are willing to pay more for child care. Minister, I would welcome you coming to my electorate to talk to the families that I have been talking to and to the electorates of all of the members on this side of the House, who are in touch with families who are struggling to meet the increased costs of child care. Even an extra $5 a week is a real stretch for them, and in many cases we are seeing cost increases of $5 a day. For two children that is $10 a day. The rebate is now capped, which means that in some cases $10 a day is an out-of-pocket expense for parents.
Research undertaken by the Australian Childcare Alliance, which represents 70 per cent of all long day care centres, further proves my case. It shows that, in 2010, one in four families had a lot of difficulty making payments, 38 per cent were willing to consider reducing the hours their child spent at child care and 37 per cent were willing to consider one parent giving up work. Reality dictates that, unfortunately, it will most likely be the mothers in these families forced to give up employment.
The minister for child care is also the Minister for the Status of Women and the minister for employment participation—she really should pay attention to those other key areas of her portfolio. Minister, this bill does nothing to boost the workforce participation of women in this country; in fact, it does exactly the opposite. This is a sad day for Australian families. I am so disappointed that this bill has come back to this House, having failed to pass the Senate.
Question put:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [13:38]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Parkinson's Disease
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (13:45): Today I rise to speak about an amazing individual in my electorate who is passionate about finding a cure for a disease that affects approximately 100,000 Australians and over 6.3 million individuals worldwide—Parkinson's Disease. Kieran Donlon is pedalling for Parkinson's next month to raise money for research and will ride his bike 4,000 kilometres from Cairns to Warrnambool.
Kieran's wife, Julie, has been living with Parkinson's Disease for 15 years. Unfortunately, there is currently no cure and scientists do not even understand the cause. Kieran says he hopes to raise $20 million, with every cent raised going to the Florey Neuroscience Institutes, not towards administration costs. Kieran says, 'If every individual donates a dollar, it is achievable. I'm doing this for Julie, I'm doing this for people with Parkinson's and I'm doing this for people who have yet to be diagnosed.'
Today I would like to urge people to support Kieran and the fight to find a cure for Parkinson's, and to urge members of this House to assist with local media to raise awareness of Kieran's ride where possible. Kieran will pass through 24 electorates on his ride. People can support Kieran and research into Parkinson's by going into any Bendigo Bank branch or by donating online.
Bass Electorate: Liberian Independence Day
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise today to congratulate the Tasmanian Liberian community. I recently attended the Liberian Independence Day festival celebrations in my electorate of Bass. The celebrations were to mark Liberia's freedom from colonisation—the day the West African country became a sovereign nation—and the 164th year since Liberian independence.
The evening of independence celebrations that I attended was a great evening, with some guests wearing spectacular traditional Liberian dress. There are about 150 Liberian people currently living in Tasmania, and I experienced a part of this well-organised and close-knit community. There were sporting events and cultural events including music, dance and food at the celebrations, which were enjoyed by all.
I spoke to many other guests. One man told me about how he now travels all over Australia for work and lives in Tasmania. Another shared his story about how he came to Tasmania from Liberia. He trained at that great institution in Launceston, the Australian Maritime College, before meeting an Australian lady and marrying her. They have now started a family. He is an engineer working in Western Australia and living in Tasmania. The stories shared were fascinating and the celebrations were enjoyed by all. It was an excellent way to promote unity amongst the Liberian community and amongst the Tasmanian people in attendance.
South Perth Train Station
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:48): I rise to brief the House on the results of my recent South Perth train station survey. After being contacted by constituents about controversial council plans for a train station and accompanying land intensification plan on the South Perth peninsula in my electorate of Swan, I decided to survey affected residents to ask them if they were in favour of or against the proposal. I received a high response rate from the residents and want to provide the House with a summary of those results today.
A majority of the responders were against a South Perth train station. Of those against, the major reason was the City of South Perth's proposal to link the future construction of a station to a density and land intensification plan. Other concerns included the potential for higher crime rates in areas surrounding train stations, congestion and parking issues, and the loss of the sense of a village community lifestyle in South Perth. Some were in favour of a station in principle and said they would use it. However, many of those residents were uncomfortable with elements of the council's density strategy as the means of achieving a station.
As such, on behalf of the community I wrote to the city of South Perth to ask them to consider not proceeding with the plans outlined in the South Perth Train Station Precinct Plan. I have also provided the results to Western Australian Ministers Buswell and Day, who are responsible for transport and planning. My view is that, if we are ever to have a station, it should be built on its own merit with the support of the community, not linked to a density plan. I understand that councillors recently decided not to proceed with the business case for the station until it has undertaken a proper consultation with the community. I think this is a positive step, and I would like to thank all the members of the community who completed my survey.
Glasman, Rabbi Yaakov
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (13:49): I want to praise the elevation of the new young rabbi of the St Kilda Hebrew Congregation, one of only five since it was established, Rabbi Yaakov Glasman. Rabbi Glasman is a first. His elevation is quite monumental in the history of the Australian Jewish community, in the sense that he is the first fully ordained rabbi who is the grandsonof four survivors of the Holocaust. His assumption of this position is of great moment to the community and, obviously, to his four grandparents that such a wonderful, enthusiastic and capable young man has taken over such a position.
The service was attended by his predecessor, the very great cantor and Rabbi Philip Heilbrunn. An amazing male choir performed under the direction of the extraordinary Mr Bartak, the choir conductor, who is the only man I know who still uses a tuning fork to achieve pitch before a choir commences singing.
I want to congratulate all of the people involved, including the president, Mr Levy, and the very extensive congregation of that very famous and beautiful synagogue in my electorate, and to congratulate Rabbi Glasman on his wonderful elevation to a position that I am sure he will fulfil with great distinction.
Australian Asian Association of Bennelong
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:51): Last Saturday I was delighted to attend the Australian Asian Association of Bennelong's annual dinner. As I told the House last week, the AAAB performs a terrific job in building bridges across diverse cultures within our region. The highlight of the annual dinner was the presentation of the 2011 Multicultural Citizen of the Year award, won by Ricky Lui. Ricky was born in Hong Kong and migrated to Sydney in the early eighties. Ricky has been an active member of the local community and, through his role with Dixon Street business leaders, helped to form a stronger, more united voice for Sydney's Chinatown businesses. These steps have led to the wonderful Lunar New Year celebration we now celebrate in a true testament to our embrace of multiculturalism.
Ricky operates a small business in Eastwood with his wife, Julie, and serves as Vice President of the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce as well as Treasurer of the Ryde Lunar New Year Committee. He is actively involved with many community organisations, including AAAB, provides local schools with free line-dancing exhibitions for Harmony Day and holds twice-monthly classical Chinese poem appreciation classes. Ricky was nominated for this award by his Eastwood business colleague and my good friend Albert Yun. Ricky Lui is a very worthy winner of the Multicultural Citizen of the Year Award, and I commend him for the great role he plays in our community.
Canberra Electorate: Karralika Program
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:53): I rise today to acknowledge the great work being done by the Karralika program in Tuggeranong in my electorate. The Karralika program helps people with alcohol and other drug dependencies through a therapeutic community approach to treatment.
The program is separated into two categories: one for adults and one for families. The adult program focuses on individual personal growth to help replace drug and alcohol addictions, and the family program offers treatment for the whole family, including the children of those battling addiction. These long-stay programs run in numerous stages and include assessment, induction, treatment, commitment and transition/after care. They run for nine to 12 months. To provide more options, Karralika recently launched a short-stay, eight-week program called Karuna, which helps people transition back to community or halfway houses.
There are many people who have worked towards the success of the Karralika program over many years, and I would like to thank them for their dedication and commitment to helping people and their families tackle the difficult programs associated with alcohol and drug addiction. I would particularly like to thank Camilla Rowland and her management team: Kim Fleming, Kerry Fitzroy, Dawn Bainbridge and Peter Townsend. I would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution made by Phil Lawler over many years. The Karralika program does wonderful work for the Canberra community, and the team at that special site are Canberra legends for the assistance they provide to Canberra and the surrounding region in getting people back on their feet.
Petition: Apple Imports
Dr STONE (Murray) (13:54): I rise to present another 2,000 signatures on petitions which condemn this government's actions in relation to fire blight. It is a serious problem. These signatures are from older people, younger people and farmers—people who work in industry in the greater Goulburn and northern Victorian areas. I have to say this is a most extraordinary situation. Miraculously, we do not have the disease fire blight in Australia. New Zealand has had it for over a century now. We know that strong protocols are the only barrier to us getting this disease, decimating the pear and apple crops. Indeed, there is also a midge mite and a European canker involved.
Our area has the world's best climate for fire blight getting established and spreading, so these petitioners are begging this government to rethink their weak protocol—the weakest that has ever been put in place—to fight any sort of pest or plant disease coming to this country. It is a dreadful precedent. What is going to happen next? Are the Filipinos allowed to decide what to do with their bananas before they come in? This is an abrogation of the nation's biosecurity responsibility. This disease, once in, is incurable and it will decimate not just my northern Victorian industry but growers throughout Australia. I beg this government to think again. The New Zealanders might have been promised by the Prime Minister that the job would be easy. That is not an appropriate national response.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
This petition from certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
The failure of the Gillard Government;
to acknowledge the very serious threat to Australia's biosecurity through the importation of fresh apples from New Zealand which has fire blight;
to implement strict quarantine regulations to guard against fire blight. therefore ask the House to instruct the Government to;
immediately put a halt to the importation of fresh apples from New Zealand;
direct Biosecurity Australia to establish strict protocols to protect Australian apples and pears from the fire blight disease.
from 2,132 citizens.
Petition received.
Bass Electorate: Community Potential Foundation Limited
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:56): I rise to congratulate Tasmania's Community Potential Foundation Limited, which is part of the Tasmania-wide organisation the O Group. The Community Potential Foundation has been awarded a $100,000 grant to provide advisory services to local businesses in the north-east of Tasmania in that great electorate of Bass that have been affected by recent floods. I recently joined the Minister for Small Business, Senator Sherry, to launch the project. The funding was made under the Australian government's Small Business Advisory Services natural disasters program to help local businesses hit by recent natural disasters. The funding is great news for the north-east of Tasmania and especially to small businesses in the Scottsdale, Branxholm, Winnaleah, Ledgerwood, Ringarooma, Gladstone, Bridport and Derby areas.
The Community Potential Foundation Limited will be able to provide one-on-one mentoring for small businesses directly and indirectly affected by the natural disaster. Services that will be provided include business recovery planning and mentoring advice on marketing, business planning and financial issues. All services are provided free or at low cost by a small-business consultant with assistance from specialist industry professionals.
Our small local businesses are a vital cog in the success of a community, creating jobs and helping local economies grow. Through the small business advisory services natural disaster assistance funding, they will be able to get the right advice to help them back on their feet.
Convoy of No Confidence
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (13:57): On Monday we saw a peaceful protest on the lawns of Parliament House. People came from all over Australia to display their anger and disgust at the way they have been treated by this government. How were these people treated—these good, hardworking people of Australia? They were ignored by the Prime Minister. They were ignored by the cabinet. They were insulted by the Leader of the House. They were insulted by the Minister for Trade.
Why are these people angry? I will tell you why. These people are angry because they have been deserted. Where are the people on this side of the House who were elected by funds raised by the unions—by the sweat of the workers, like the member for Maribyrnong on the AWU and the member for Corio for the Transport Workers Union? All that effort! These people put these members in there to look after the interests of the workers, and they have been sold out to the elite Greens agenda. They have been sold out to the people behind me—the Greens and the Independents—and deserted by this government.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Parkes has the call.
Mr COULTON: The Leader of the House will stop and talk in the chamber but not go out to the front and speak to the people of Australia as they come onto the lawns expecting a decent hearing. In 1985 Bob Hawke spoke to 20,000 farmers outside Parliament House, but would this Prime Minister go out to speak to the people on Monday? They were ignored. (Time expired)
Convoy of No Confidence
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:59): I take off from where the previous speaker finished. I was appalled by the arrogance and the contempt shown by the Leader of the House, who described this week's rally as a 'convoy of no consequence'. Then we had the Leader of the Greens, the partner in this government, who went further. He depicted the protesters as 'moaners and a general smorgasbord of whingers'. That is a bit rich coming from a professional protestor like the Leader of the Greens. I will say this to those opposite: lose the arrogant attitude. Show some respect and be very careful. The moaners and the whingers—those people of no consequence you talk about—will have their day. Start showing them some respect.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Norway Massacre
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (13:59): Briefly, earlier this week I advised the House that I had been asked by members of parliament as to whether or not we would do anything to offer our condolences to the people of Norway on their losses, and I said I would have something further to say about it during the course of the week. I can now advise the House that I have written to the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, inviting him to visit Australia as an official guest of government. Mr Stoltenberg is intending to transit through Australia on way to the Norwegian Antarctic Territory. Given that Norway is a good friend and a good partner of our country, I thought it was appropriate to offer him the opportunity for a formal head of government visit. Australia and a Norway cooperate on a number of important global challenges, including arms control, peace building, peacekeeping and climate change, so I am delighted that he has accepted his invitation and he will be here a little later this year.
This week also marks one month since the brutal attacks which took place in Norway. In my letter to Prime Minister Stoltenberg I took the opportunity again to convey our deepest condolences to the victims, their families and the people of Norway. Their courage and strength is an inspiration and we will have an opportunity to reflect on that when the Prime Minister of Norway is with us.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): I join the Prime Minister in condemning those attacks in Norway and on behalf of the coalition offering our condolences to the Norwegian government and people.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:02): I inform that House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC will be absent from question time today as he is travelling to Canada to attend the veterans affairs ministerial summit. The Minister for Defence will answer questions in relation to defence science and personnel; the Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions in relation to Indigenous health; and the Minister for Defence Materiel will answer questions in relation to veterans affairs and the Centenary of ANZAC on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Member for Dobell
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of Kathy Jackson, the secretary of the Health Services Union:
… there's been … unauthorised expenditure … and we want answers …
Given that there have been no answers from the member for Dobell, I ask the Prime Minister: on what basis has she come to the conclusion that the member for Dobell is worthy of her full confidence?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:03): Of course I am aware of statements made by Kathy Jackson. Kathy Jackson is a union official. Unions, are, of course, the organisations that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to put out of business as part of the Work Choices agenda.
On the issues that he has raised about the member for Dobell, can I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: another day and he digs himself deeper into the mud of hypocrisy on this question. Can I remind the Leader of the Opposition there is only one member of the federal parliament who has been charged with a criminal offence. That is a Liberal Party senator who has been charged with an offence against a person and an offence against property, and those charges are obviously coming to trial and going through appropriate criminal processes. It is not appropriate in respect of that Liberal senator for conclusions to be drawn about her innocence or guilt beforehand. The Leader of the Opposition said that. He said:
The matter is now before the courts where I understand it will be contested and she should be extended the presumption of innocence.
That is in relation to a criminal charge and I repeat again: the only member of this parliament facing criminal charges is a Liberal senator.
On the question of the matters involving the member for Dobell, as is well known, there is a Fair Work Australia investigation in progress and I believe it is appropriate to wait for the outcome of any such investigation.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the member for Dobell, who has no case before the courts at this stage. The Prime Minister is answering on the basis of a Liberal senator who has been charged with an offence. That is obviously an entirely different case and she therefore can answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The point of order was not relevant to the question but, if the point of order is direct relevance, at the point in time that the Prime Minister was interrupted she was being directly relevant, and I highly encourage her to continue to conclude her answer in a directly relevant manner.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for confirming what I have said to the parliament—that there is only one member of parliament charged with a criminal offence.
For the member for Dobell, people know there are Fair Work Australia investigations in process and the appropriate thing to do is to wait for the outcome of those investigations.
Can I also remind the Leader of the Opposition not only is he mired in the hypocrisy of applying a completely different standard to a Liberal senator than any standard he extends to the member for Dobell; he is mired in hypocrisy in that when in government he was the first one as Leader of Government Business to get to this dispatch box to defend Liberal members who were in various scrapes and to say that they should be extended the presumption of innocence and that people should not act or draw conclusions until investigations came to an end. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that at that time he sat behind Prime Minister Howard, who said—and I specifically adopt these words as my own:
… a lot of people who are under investigation end up having nothing to answer for.
He was talking about a police investigation dealing with three Liberal MPs. He went on to say:
It's a police investigation and the appropriate thing for me to do is to let the police investigation run its course and then if it is appropriate I will have something to say.
Prime Minister Howard was right then. I adopt those words now in relation to the member for Dobell and the Fair Work Australia investigation.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I ask it on behalf of Kathy Jackson and the 70,000 members of the Health Services Union.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the standing orders do not provide for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions on behalf of anyone but himself. Also, the idea that any trade unionist would get him to ask that question is quite clearly out of—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No matter what the level of emotion each of you as an individual has, we will be judged on our collective actions by those outside. It has been a long fortnight. There are a few hours to go, but some of you might have an early mark.
Mr ABBOTT: Kathy Jackson is a brave, decent woman, and she is speaking up on behalf of 70,000 members. I refer the Prime Minister to her words:
… there's been unauthorised use of credit cards, unauthorised expenditure that is not normal union expenditure and we want answers … This union and our members require answers …
When will this Prime Minister ask the member for Dobell to provide some answers? When will she give them herself?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): As I said in answer to the earlier question, I know Kathy Jackson. I know her particularly from the days when I was shadow minister for health and she was campaigning alongside me against the destruction of the Australian health system being presided over by the now Leader of the Opposition. She was standing alongside me as we campaigned against his destruction of Medicare and bulk-billing. She was standing alongside me as we campaigned against his $1 billion worth of cutbacks to the public hospital system. She was standing alongside me as we campaigned against the disgraceful way that Australians—
Dr Stone: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you are aware of what it will be, Mr Speaker—it is on relevance. There is nothing in the question from the Leader of the Opposition which asks about the health portfolio or past history; it is about the issue of the day.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Ms GILLARD: It is not my fault that they are badly drafted. On a question that specifically raised character issues in relation to Kathy Jackson, I am responding. In specifically responding to those character issues as raised, I remind the parliament about the campaign that she and others participated in because pensioners could not get the most basic dental care under the Leader of the Opposition when he was presiding as health minister. Let us remember all of the things that were happening as they sought to spread Work Choices to the public hospital system. Let us remember the real threats that there were to tie public hospital funding to the offering of Australian workplace agreements so that staff in public hospitals would have things like their penalty rates smashed away. That is what was happening when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for health.
I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that I understand that he has used Kathy Jackson's words; and he would understand—I am sure he does understand this—that the matter is now being assessed by the New South Wales police. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition would know that because his shadow minister, Senator Brandis, has been out in a deeply concerning fashion ringing the New South Wales police minister to get the New South Wales police minister to ring the police commissioner. Senator Brandis is ringing up his Liberal mate to ring up a police commissioner. Why would this be happening? Why would I be concerned about this? I am concerned about it because I remember the days when the Leader of the Opposition was running political protection for Wilson Tuckey after he tried to intimidate the police into withdrawing a speeding fine from his son.
So, when we look at the modern Liberal Party, what do they believe in? Saying no to everything—they believe in that; rejoicing when workers lose their jobs—they believe in that; creating a $70 billion black hole—they obviously believe in that; and from their past conduct we know they are not above putting pressure on police officers, because it has happened before, and now Senator Brandis has some explaining to do.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:14): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mathew Makot. Mathew's journey from Southern Sudan to be here in the gallery as a year 12 student at St Patricks College, Shorncliffe, is quite an inspiring journey. He gained a highly recommended in our My First Speech competition. He is a most welcome guest here to observe our robust democracy—even though it might be overly robust. Welcome, Mathew.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Health
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's efforts to boost primary care through Medicare Locals and invest in our hospitals as part of national health reform?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:15): I thank the member for Greenway for her question and I also thank her along with a large number of other members for attending with me, the Minister for Health and Ageing and Minister Mark Butler a Medicare Locals event in this parliament this morning. This was the first 19 Medicare Locals who are out there now bringing together services so that they can better offer community members who live in their local area coordinated care.
Of course, this has been part of the rebuilding of the health system we have needed to do as a result of the way it was when we inherited it in 2007, where of course the Leader of the Opposition had left it short of money, short of doctors and short of nurses—indeed, short of everything that goes to making a health system. He certainly left it short of any reform vision. He was happy for it to just gently decline, with the Commonwealth's share of funding into hospitals going down and down and down, as the waiting time that Australians had for emergency department care and elective surgery care just went up and up and up.
So we have had a lot to do, and today we took some more steps forward. We have reached a historic health reform agreement—a big change to our health system; as big as what was achieved under Medicare—which has put our health system, and particularly our hospitals, on a proper path for funding. We will be there as an equal partner in growth in hospitals—a very important reform.
But we recognise that more needs to be done, and particularly that many Australians end up in hospitals when they did not need to be there. We have very high hospitalisation rates compared with many countries that are comparable to our own. In order to reduce those hospitalisation rates we need to get people better care in the community. That means that we need better coordination. The modern burden of disease is of chronic and complex conditions. People need their GP but they also need a range of other health practitioners. Medicare Locals are about assisting with that coordination and enabling local communities to identify where gaps and holes are there and what would best work for their local community to fill those gaps and holes.
Then, of course, the health system does require capital, and one of the things that we have been very concerned about is the differential health outcomes between people in metropolitan Australia and regional and rural Australia, where there is a traceable difference in life expectancy. In order to make a difference for health care in regional and rural Australia, we have been making sure that capital is provided to bring in new facilities and to bring old facilities up to better standards in regional areas. That is why this morning I was very pleased, with the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Regional Australia, to announce that we are opening a new round of the Health and Hospitals Fund—an amount of $475 million. Applications are open and will close in October. We will make the necessary provisions and announce the results as part of the budget preparation process in 2012.
Member for Dobell
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments by the National Secretary of the Health Services Union, Kathy Jackson, that the investigation of allegations against the member for Dobell by Fair Work Australia was far too slow. Has the Prime Minister, either in that position or as the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, her staff or any minister or their staff had contact with officials of Fair Work Australia to discuss the length of time that the investigation has taken?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:19): What I can say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that decisions about how fair work processes will roll out are, of course, a matter for Fair Work Australia. So they need to make those decisions themselves and independently. What I can also say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that perhaps she might be better spending her time directing her attention to why Senator Brandis has involved himself in a New South Wales Police matter in quite the way that he has.
Ms Julie Bishop: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question related to the Prime Minister—whether as Prime Minister or as the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—or her staff or other ministers and their staff making contact with Fair Work Australia about the investigation and the time it was taking.
The SPEAKER: The standing orders require that the response must be directly relevant to the question. I remind the Prime Minister of that fact, and I will listen carefully to her answer.
Ms GILLARD: I can certainly assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have not been involved in trying to put political pressure on police. I wonder if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can give the same guarantee.
Economy
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House why it is important for the government to deliver economic reforms that are costed, funded and consistent with a serious and credible fiscal policy? What other approaches have been put forward and what would be the impact of these?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:21): I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I would also like to acknowledge Mathew's presence in the gallery today and say how proud we all are of his achievements.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr SWAN: We have spoken a lot about the patchwork economy over the past few months and indeed over the past year, and we have seen the contrast in our economy writ large in the past week. We have seen the substantial job losses at BlueScope, which have been caused by the high Australian dollar and other global factors, but on the other hand we have also seen substantial new investments in the resource sector in the past week and of course we have seen today the record BHP profit of $22 billion.
The challenges of the patchwork economy go to the very core of our economic policy-making. Our last budget was focused exclusively on spreading the opportunities of the mining boom. That is why we had a $3 billion training and skills package at the core of that, it is why we must also begin to bring down the company tax rate, it is why we must also give small businesses a very substantial tax cut through the $6,500 instant asset write-off, and it is also why we must put in place the minerals resource rent tax, so we can use those resources from the highly profitable mining industry to cut taxes for struggling businesses elsewhere in our economy.
I know the Leader of the Opposition believes that mining companies are paying too much tax and he believes they should pay less, but what is even more astounding is that he believes that other businesses that are not in the fast lane must have an increase in their company tax rate, and that was the policy that he took to the last election. This is stunningly stupid economic policy. The Australian people deserve, through the MRRT, a fair share of the resources of our country. How the Liberal Party could go around the country arguing that we should not have a resource rent tax, to give a tax cut to small business and to give a tax cut to other businesses through a reduction in the corporate tax rate, is simply astounding. But how he could then compound that by arguing for an increase in the company tax rate just demonstrates how reckless he is and how big a risk he and the shadow Treasurer are to our economy.
At the heart of our reform agenda is a strict fiscal policy. We have put in place a strict fiscal policy to bring our budget back to surplus. It is a strategy that has been endorsed by the IMF and the international rating agencies. We have made a very important advance with that fiscal policy this week by announcing the Parliamentary Budget Office. This is very important because those opposite went through the last election with an $11 billion black hole in their budget estimates and they tried to hoodwink the Australian people that their numbers added up, but at the end of the day the department of finance and Treasury found that they did not add up after the election and that there was an $11 billion black hole. They will have nowhere to hide as they go through to the next election, because they will have to submit their costings to the Parliamentary Budget Office or the Department of Treasury. This is important. The shadow Treasurer has now said that there was a $70 billion hole at the core of their budget estimates. That was repeated by the shadow finance spokesman a few days ago, but today the Leader of the Opposition has said that they did not say that and that is just fanciful. What this proves is that he will say anything and do anything. What does not drive this Leader of the Opposition is the national interest. It is just his short-term political interests. His statements today demonstrate just how unqualified he is and how unfit he is for high office.
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of Kathy Jackson, National Secretary of the Health Services Union:
Our members are working class people. They earn less than $20 an hour doing work that nobody else wants to do. These people are salt of the earth and they deserve answers.
Will the Prime Minister now provide answers by detailing all meetings, discussions and email communications between the Prime Minister or her office and the New South Wales Labor Party that relate to the gift or loan made by the Labor Party to the member for Dobell?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:26): Firstly, I say to the shadow minister for education that I was a little amused this morning when I saw the Leader of the Opposition on ABC24 News Breakfast saying that, if question time had proceeded yesterday, he had lots of questions on jobs. I thought stand-up comedy finished with the Leader of the Opposition!
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: Exactly! Come in, spinner! I thank the shadow Treasurer for confirming in this parliament that they do not care about—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a perfectly serious question that goes to her truthfulness and she is completely dismissing it. This is a very serious matter. I would ask you to ensure that she answers the questions.
The SPEAKER: There is a requirement under the standing orders for the Prime Minister to be directly relevant to the question, and I will listen to the answer. There is also a requirement under the standing orders for members not to interrupt. I would suggest that they do that—that the interjections cease—and that the Prime Minister ignore the interjections. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
Ms GILLARD: I thank the shadow Treasurer for laying bare the political aspirations of the Liberal Party: all about themselves; they never cared anything about the jobs of the Australian people. And to the shadow minister who asked the question—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: Maybe, instead of screaming, he might like to listen to the answer.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: No—of course, he wants to keep screaming because that is what they are like as well: not serious about their roles in this parliament. To the shadow minister who asked the question, I would say this: he has asked me a question about the decision of the—
An honourable member: Get to it!
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan, or whoever it was, will be very careful. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: He has asked me a question about the decision of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party in relation to the payment of some expenses. I would refer the shadow minister to the statement of the Liberal Party's Victorian director on 5 May 2011 where he was dealing with the question of payment by the Liberal Party of expenses in a defamation incurred by a Liberal member, where he said:
The suggestion that there is any conflict of interest for the Liberal Party to support one of its parliamentarians in a defamation action arising from his public duties, when in opposition, is ridiculous.
Then, of course, Premier Baillieu was also questioned about the matter. I say to the Liberal Party: what this proves is the stinking hypocrisy which is driving it each and every day. The Liberal Party paying defamation expenses for a member—apparently that is okay. A Liberal Party member is charged with criminal offences. We do the right thing and make no presumptions about her guilt or innocence, and they ask us to do that, but in relation to the member for Dobell they are not prepared to do the same. The Liberal Party: always prepared to throw allegations of cover-ups against other people, but the Leader of the Opposition knew for months that one of his members had been criminally charged and said nothing about it until he was asked. The Liberal Party: always very keen to say that the member for Dobell should surrender his committee chair position, but a Liberal Senator who is charged with criminal offences is apparently fine.
Frankly, what really needs to happen here are common standards, and common standards require the following: if people are under investigation then we make no assumptions and we allow that investigation to take its course. That is what we have been prepared to do every day regarding a member of parliament in the other place. That is what the Leader of the Opposition should do regarding the member for Dobell. Anything else is hypocrisy that is fuelled by the opposition's political interest. As the shadow Treasurer has just laid plain before this parliament, the Liberal Party does not care about anything else—not about jobs, not about health, not about education, not about the economy, not about anything else—except one job and that is a job for the Leader of the Opposition. While they are there, mired in their hypocrisy, we will get on with the job of leading this nation. (Time expired)
Mrs Mirabella: You are leading this nation into thousands of job losses.
The SPEAKER: Order!
Economy
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. The mining boom is hurting the rest of the economy, with manufacturing, tourism and agriculture all affected by the high dollar. We have known for some time that large mining giants are making enormous profits, much of which are being sent overseas—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Melbourne has the call. He is asking a question and he should be heard in silence.
Mr BANDT: We know that on some projects as little as little as 10 per cent of the steel used is produced locally. Will the government commit to mining corporations having local content requirements for its investments in Australia?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:33): I thank the member for Melbourne for the only decent question asked by a non-government member during question time today. I do not know whether it is only me who is amused or whether it may be amusing others that the only non-government member prepared to ask a question about the economy is from the Greens! We cannot get one from the once-great Liberal Party. I do not know if that is amusing only to me or whether it might amuse people more broadly. As the Liberal Party sinks in its stinking hole of mud and hypocrisy, I have been asked a question by the member for Melbourne, which is on a serious issue—that is, the jobs of Australian workers.
To the member for Melbourne I say: we understand that the economic circumstances of today, where the Australian economy is strong in its fundamentals—
Mrs Mirabella: So why are you introducing a carbon tax then? You are making it worse!
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Indi!
Ms GILLARD: To the member for Indi, why is she cutting industry assistance? Maybe she wants to justify that. Why is she cutting industry assistance—
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi will cease interjecting and the Prime Minister will ignore the interjections.
Ms GILLARD: ripping half a billion dollars of industry support away from manufacturing workers? It is because—
Mrs Mirabella: Two billion dollars, you are cutting! Two billion dollars in promises were cut.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Indi will cease interjecting.
Ms GILLARD: the member for Indi and the Leader of the Opposition think manufacturing workers are good backdrops for a photo, but they do not think anything else about them. That is the only thing they have ever thought about them. They do not care about their jobs and they do not care about industry assistance for their jobs.
To the member for Melbourne, we are in economic times where, yes, the turbocharged nature of the resources boom is keeping the Australian dollar high, and that is putting pressure on other industry segments, including manufacturing. We understood that this was going to happen, so we have been working on it and setting up for it, understanding that this is where we would get to. We have strongly engaged with manufacturing through the framework of powering ideas—the innovation framework.
Mrs Mirabella: So why has the steel council not met for six months?
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi is warned!
Ms GILLARD: We have strongly engaged with them through the procurement statement that has, as a subset, the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative—
Mrs Mirabella: It has not met. The steel council has not met.
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi, having been warned, will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a).
The member for Indi then left the chamber.
Ms GILLARD: Under the Australian procurement statement we have supported the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative, and this week we were pleased to announce that Peter Beattie would be the resources sector supplier envoy in relation to that. We have also had industry participation plans to work through. These are ways of ensuring that when we are a purchaser, when government is tendering, that we can leverage that purchasing power for the creation of an Australian Industry Participation Plan. We also have the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme, which does the same sort of leveraging when people seek particular arrangements, as well as the Supplier Access to Major Projects program, which leverages against government decision-making procurement and procurement directed at Australian suppliers. We understand that in this period of change we need to stay very strongly engaged with manufacturing. I believe manufacturing has a future in this country. It will require a government that values jobs and values manufacturing to work with it, and we are such a government.
Police Investigations
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (14:37): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General advise why it is important for police investigations to proceed in a manner that is, and is seen to be, free from political interference or pressure.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for Banks for his question. He is respected as a person who has served the justice community with distinction. It is well known that on Tuesday of this week the New South Wales Police Force indicated that it is conducting an internal assessment to determine whether a criminal offence has occurred in respect of matters concerning a member of this House.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo!
Mr McCLELLAND: I should say and emphasise at the outset that I have full confidence in the integrity and independence of the New South Wales Police Force—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Mayo then left the chamber.
Mr McCLELLAND: and indeed its fine leadership. In fact, the police service has a right to undertake its important statutory responsibilities without political interference. This is confirmed in the 'United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors', which provides that states shall ensure that prosecutors are able:
To perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment [or] improper interference ...
Conversely, police forces and prosecutors have a corresponding obligation to ensure that they exercise their powers 'independently and be free from political interference'. That is stated as a quote from the 'Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors'. They have that right and we are entitled to, and should indeed, respect that right.
Those international principles are reflected in domestic laws and guidelines for police services and prosecutors in the prosecution guidelines of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which specify that he is not to be influenced by possible political advantage, disadvantage or embarrassment to the government or any political group or party. I understand that the New South Wales guidelines reflect a similar sentiment. Indeed, the statement of values of the New South Wales Police Force specifically states that they are to conduct their role with impartiality. Indeed they do, and they are entitled to be respected for that fact.
In that context, it is quite irresponsible for any politician to take a course of action that has the potential to tarnish the public's perception of that complete impartiality. Fundamentally, we should appreciate in this House that we are legislators; we are not prosecutors. It is not our role to prejudge issues that are the subject of investigation or, more significantly, to attempt to induce police or prosecutors to take a particular course of action.
I, as I have done on a number of occasions, Senator Brandis and others—any member of the public—can refer to police officers an issue of concern in respect of a potential breach of the law, but to take action that purports to induce them is crossing that line. I, in my role as Attorney-General, would caution all members in the strongest possible terms about embarking upon that very dangerous slope.
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last month the Prime Minister said that News Limited in Australia had some hard questions to answer despite the absence of any allegations of criminal activity against them in Australia. Should the Prime Minister not apply the same standards to the member for Dobell and stop protecting him from answering the hard questions in relation to the serious allegations levelled against him?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): One of these days the shadow minister will ask a question about Australian schools, but it clearly will not be today.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt! The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I do find this kind of stupidity from the opposition amusing; that is right. In answer to the shadow minister's question—as they bellow and scream the way they normally do—I did make that statement about News Limited. I did it at a time when Australians were watching issues in the United Kingdom and they were a cause of community concern. There was, for a period a couple of years ago, a UK scandal involving parliamentary entitlements. People would recall that. When people saw that on their TV screens in the UK it did cause a national conversation about parliamentarian entitlements, even though there was no evidence of anything happening of the same nature here and, indeed, the rules were very different here. I made a very simple point about the nature of our national conversation following what people were watching on their TV screens through the News of the World scandal.
What I believe is entirely different here, and what the shadow minister is clearly not understanding, is it is one thing for us as a nation to have public policy debates; it is another thing to prejudge a matter in relation to an individual. I am concerned about Senator Brandis's conduct in relation to the matter the Attorney-General has just described, but Senator Brandis did say one very perceptive thing on 19 August. He said:
Senator Fisher is being prosecuted. She maintains her innocence. She is entitled to a fair trial just as the member for Dobell is entitled to a fair trial.
That is where the matter would and should rest if the opposition were not fuelled by hypocrisy and their own narrow political interest. As the shadow Treasurer has made abundantly clear today the only thing that motivates them, the only thing they care about, the only issues they will ever pursue in this parliament are ones—
Mr Hockey: Your integrity or lack thereof.
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is warned.
Ms GILLARD: which they think will enable them to change jobs. They have got no concern about the Australian public, no concern about jobs, no plans in health, no plans in education and no knowledge of how to run the Australian economy. All they have left in the back of the cupboard is Work Choices and a $70 billion black hole and they pursue their hypocrisy and self-interest day after day—it is truly disgusting.
Health
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, how is the government delivering on health reform to prepare Australia for the challenges for the future? What obstacles are there to this reform and what is the government's response?
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and Ageing) (14:45): I thank the member for Page for her question. She has been very interested in how health reform is delivering for the whole country but particularly in her electorate, where over $50 million is being invested in emergency departments, in a cancer centre, in GP superclinics, in a new assessment unit and in accommodation for cancer patients. So there is good news, which those constituents in the electorate of Page are seeing evidence of each and every day. We are very proud to be part of a government that is moving forward on all fronts in terms of health reform.
Of course a big step was taken yesterday in part of our health reforms where this House passed the world's first plain-packaging legislation for cigarettes. It was a big occasion and a very courageous step that this parliament and our nation is taking. I must mention, especially when tomorrow is Daffodil Day, that we have those from the Cancer Council here in the gallery today. I am sure they are pleased not only that so many of us are wearing their scarves and badges but that this step that is being taken will help to reduce the toll that cancer causes in our community, because so much of that cancer is still caused from tobacco related disease.
Unfortunately, although the Leader of the Opposition did not oppose the main legislation that was debated in the House, a very large number from his backbench spoke passionately against it including the member for Mitchell, who said that there was no point bothering about such things because life kills anyway, so why would you bother doing anything to reduce the harms caused by tobacco? What a disgrace.
This was equalled only by the member for Dawson, who said that smoking was fun, so why would we pass this sort of legislation? He showed absolutely no understanding as to why we are trying to reduce the harms of tobacco. Coming into this parliament and making these sorts of ridiculous comments is not a good way to set an example for our community.
Mr Christensen: Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the minister has made a false statement to parliament. I did not say smoking was fun. I would ask her—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will resume his seat. Order! The member for Dawson should know by now, but if not somebody will inform him, that there are other ways that he can address his grievance.
Ms ROXON: Of course, in relation to many health reform measures we have seen the Liberal Party be entirely inconsistent. We have had the Leader of the Opposition saying, on no less than six occasions, that he supports activity based funding and we have had the shadow minister telling the Financial Review and others that they will vote against that in the parliament. We have the Leader of the Opposition setting up a temporary safety and quality commission. He did not make it permanent; when we made it permanent they voted against it. He promised he was going to build e-health records in five years. He did not deliver those. We are now delivering those and they are now opposed to them. He said he supported more transparency in our hospitals; he did not make that happen. We are making that happen and they now oppose it. The Leader of the Opposition spent his time as health minister saying he could have done something, he should have done something, he would have done something, but he did not. We are doing it and it is time they got on board and supported us.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dickson will withdraw.
Mr Dutton: I withdraw.
Steel Industry
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that the position of steel industry advocate has now been vacant for nine months. I also remind the Prime Minister that her Steel Industry Innovation Council, the government's most important steel industry advisory body, has not met once in the past six months. If the Prime Minister really cares about the steel industry, why didn't she at least consult her peak advisory body about how to protect the jobs of BlueScope workers?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:51): I am glad we have shamed the Leader of the Opposition into asking a question about jobs. Unfortunately, he does not bother to keep himself up to date with these matters because he does not really care. If he had bothered to keep himself up to date with these matters instead of being paralysed, sitting there just thinking about muck and hypocrisy for a week, if he had done a day's work this week, he would have realised that Dennis O'Neill has been appointed as the next steel supplier advocate and Peter Beattie has been appointed as the country's first resource sector supplier envoy.
On the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's question he will continue—and this question is no doubt part of that campaign—to distort and misrepresent to the Australian people what the job losses at BlueScope were about. He is desperate to continue his fear and misrepresentation campaign so that even though this is about the jobs of 1,000 workers he will misrepresent to the Australian community that this is about carbon pricing. I directly engaged with the CEOs of the major steel companies. I did not go through a council, I did it myself. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and others have all been directly involved with the steel industry and we did that in order to get the Steel Transformation Plan right. And before the Leader of the Opposition continues this fear campaign and this misrepresentation, I would refer him to the words of the CEOs of those steel companies, where they very clearly said that the government had worked with them and had settled an outcome in carbon pricing and had heard their concerns. BlueScope, of course, said very, very upfront in relation to Monday's announcement, that it was not about carbon pricing. The government had worked with BlueScope, which is why we were able to make the announcements that we did on Monday, and we will continue to work with BlueScope.
The Leader of the Opposition sits there and at the moment he has got no plan at all to assist manufacturing. Indeed, he stands for cutbacks—half a million dollars out of the automobile industry assistance that has been provided. Of course he is bleating there about carbon tax. It has nothing to do with carbon pricing. This is $500 million of industry assistance that has been promised to the industry for a long period of time, and it would be ripped away. The Leader of the Opposition is going to face a big choice when this parliament resumes, because we will be bringing in here the Steel Transformation Plan. He has made an art form of standing next to blue-collar workers with a hard hat on and a high-vis vest and pretending that really he is working-class Tony. It will be very interesting to see whether or not the man from North Shore will put his hand up for steelworkers when the time comes.
Carbon Farming Initiative
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline how the government's Clean Energy Future plan and the Carbon Farming Initiative will cut pollution and benefit the land sector? What obstacles are there to the government's plans? What is the government's response?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:54): I would like to thank the member for Petrie for her question. An important piece of legislation passed the parliament this week: the government's carbon-farming legislation. The Carbon Farming Initiative will open up very important economic opportunities for farmers, for foresters, and for other land managers, to earn revenue from cutting pollution and storing carbon in the landscape. The CFI, the Carbon Farming Initiative, is a market mechanism and it is expected to generate investment of an estimated 460 million carbon credits to the year 2050, a very significant economic opportunity.
The government also recognises that the CFI needs to be complemented by other significant investments in our land sector so that farmers and others can realise the full benefits. That is why the government announced a commitment to a further $1.7 billion of revenue from the carbon pricing mechanism to support the Carbon Farming Initiative and reward important co-benefits to biodiversity and enhance the resilience of the landscape.
The coalition's position on the Carbon Farming Initiative has, I think, betrayed farmers and demonstrated what a costly shambles their policy-making process is and how they appear to have lost interest in anything constructive to do with policy.
At first, the coalition responded very positively to the Carbon Farming Initiative. The shadow minister was quite optimistic and positive and supportive about it. But then when it came to a vote in the House of Representatives, the opposition voted against it. The legislation found its way to the Senate, of course, where the opposition then filibustered for no fewer than 16 hours and ultimately voted against the legislation. It is a very curious position for the National Party in particular to be adopting. But after all of that, when the carbon-farming legislation came back to the House of Representatives this week, the shadow minister declared that any future coalition government would not in fact repeal the legislation. It did not call a division and, having voted against it twice, they are now happy to let it go, and he said:
We will not be abolishing the bill. It is important to give this message to potential actors and investors in the space.
This capitulation was apparently driven by a recognition that it is important to give farmers and other stakeholders certainty. That is a welcome recognition.
But the trouble for the coalition is that the Carbon Farming Initiative, and certainty for farmers and other stakeholders, is inextricably linked to the passage of carbon-pricing legislation. Very importantly, in the carbon-pricing legislation that will come before the House in coming weeks, there is $1.7 billion worth of assistance to support the CFI and people in the land sector, no less than $420 million for the Carbon Farming Futures Program, which will deliver research and methods for crediting carbon in the landscape, and a number of other important measures. If they do genuinely support these things but not the carbon price, this would mean another $1.7 billion hole in the policy that the average Australian household is going to have to fund. Already, of course, households are going to have to fund $1,300 more in taxes to pay for their silly policy position that will achieve nothing. Their policy-making in this area has all the same credibility as the claim of the Leader of the Opposition that a tonne of carbon dioxide is weightless. Their policy is a joke. (Time expired)
Steel Industry
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is so concerned about a lack of Australian steel being used in Australian mines, why does the government want to increase the cost of Australian steel by imposing a carbon tax that our main competition, Chinese steelmakers, do not have to pay?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): I say to the shadow Treasurer that he may want to do a bit of research and he may want to talk to people in the steel industry. He may want to speak specifically to the CEO of BlueScope and the CEO of OneSteel, and he may want to speak to them specifically about the way in which the government worked through their concerns with carbon pricing. He may want to bother doing some reading and when he does that reading he should read through the statements they made when the carbon-pricing package was announced. And he may want to do some reading on what BlueScope said when it announced job losses earlier this week, that it was not to do with carbon pricing. Then he may want to reflect on the question of hypocrisy and whether you should come into this parliament pretending you care about steelworker jobs when you are going to come into this parliament in the next few sitting weeks and put your hand up against $300 million of assistance for steelworkers.
Let's be absolutely clear about this—absolutely clear to the workers at BlueScope and the workers beyond: this side of the parliament will come in here and vote for a $300 million transformation plan. We are determined to deliver assistance to them, and we will deliver assistance to them. Those on the other side should be judged on how they vote on that piece of legislation. The shadow Treasurer will come in and put his hand in the air and say, 'I don't care at all about steelworking jobs; I don't care about them at all.' That is what he will do with his vote in the parliament, just like he did during the global financial crisis, where he came in and said, 'I don't care about the jobs of Australians,' and just as the opposition will in the minerals resource rent tax debate, where Australians will see profitable mining companies, and that is a good thing. They will see results like they saw with BHP today, and they are a good thing. They will see a turbocharged, highly profitable industry, and the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition will come into this parliament and they will vote against the minerals resource rent tax. They will deny other companies and small businesses a tax cut, they will deny Australian workers a superannuation increase and they will deny Australians more infrastructure.
So, for the shadow Treasurer, I am very happy to debate economic credentials and supporting Australian jobs with him any day of the week. In the global financial crisis we acted and saved jobs; you recommended doing nothing and voted against what we did. We are here engaged with manufacturing and its future; you think manufacturing workers are a good backdrop for a photo opportunity, but otherwise you could not care if they were all made redundant. We are here managing the economy during a period of economic transition, keeping up our credentials as a great free-trading nation, and you are over there flirting with protectionism. Unless we intimidate you out of it—like we had to with the apples bill—you will try to take us out of the World Trade Organisation global rules based order. So it is time the shadow Treasurer actually stumped up and said something sensible about the future of this country.
Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It must be a long bow to be drawn between apples and Chinese steel imports. The Prime Minister is clearly not being relevant to the question. I would ask you to draw her back to the question. Just answer one question—one—
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
Ms GILLARD: The connection is jobs, and you will never understand it.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hindmarsh has the call. The member for North Sydney, having been warned, will leave the chamber standing order under 94(a) for one hour.
The member for North Sydney then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Hindmarsh. Silence is golden, but he does have 45 seconds.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr GEORGANAS ( Hindmarsh ) ( 15:03 ): My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government supporting Australian pensioners to balance their household budgets? What risks are there to this support?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked; it is now being responded to.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (15:04): I very much thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. He knows that the Labor government are very serious about supporting Australia's pensioners because we do understand how difficult it is for pensioners and other people on fixed incomes to manage their household budgets. Of course, it was this government that delivered record increases in the pension in 2009. Since September 2009, pensioners on the maximum rate have been receiving $128 extra a fortnight if they are single and around $116 a fortnight extra for couples combined—never delivered by those opposite but delivered by this Labor government—to make sure that pensioners are able to manage their household budgets.
It was also this government that improved the indexation system for pensioners to make sure that the pension keeps up with pensioners' costs of living. That was why this government also increased the utilities allowance by $400 and why we have introduced a new seniors work bonus, meaning that those pensioners who are doing some part-time work are able to keep more of what they earn.
Our record demonstrates that we stand up for Australia's pensioners. We are, of course, going to make sure that we do that when we introduce a carbon price. We do understand how important it is to support Australia's 3.4 million pensioners—whether they are aged pensioners, disability support pensioners, people on the carer payment or veteran pensioners. All of these pensioners will receive extra assistance to make sure that they can manage with the carbon price. These are going to be real and permanent increases to their pensions—something that pensioners know they can rely on from this side of the parliament.
We know, and pensioners know, where the risks to their standard of living really lie. Pensioners know that, for 12 long years, this Leader of the Opposition and the Howard cabinet refused to deliver an increase to their pension. We know there was an actual proposal for an increase to the pension that went to the cabinet that this Leader of the Opposition was a member of, and it was rejected by those opposite. We also know that it is this Leader of the Opposition that has said he intends to claw back the household assistance that we intend to pay to pensioners to fill his $70 billion black hole. That is where he intends to get it from. The shadow Treasurer, who has just been thrown out the parliament, let the cat out of the bag on the ABC's 7.30 program just last week when he said:
I'm not saying we'll necessarily cut the pension.
What pensioners want to know is how much of the pension you will cut, how much of the pension supplement you will cut and how much of their pensioner concessions you will cut to fill the $70 billion black hole that you have created. Pensioners deserve to know.
Carbon Pricing
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (15:08): My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney to the Australian Crime Commission's report Organised Crime in Australia 2011, which states:
In Norway, a group is being investigated for carbon tax evasion as part of a Europol tax fraud probe into allegations that up to five billion euros of revenue has been lost.
Cyber criminals also allegedly accessed European business systems and stole legitimate carbon trading permits, which were then sold on the open market.
Attorney, are these the same markets from which the government believes that Australians must purchase $3½ billion in foreign carbon credits by 2020?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Attorney-General has been asked a question. I would have thought those on my left would want to listen to the answer having asked the question.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (15:09): Members should be advised that the government was aware of that report in designing the regulatory framework that will apply to the arrangements that we are developing in Australia. There was some debate, I think five to six weeks ago, regarding the extent and the intensity of that regulatory framework and, indeed, in many cases quite strong penalties that are being applied to prevent that sort of behaviour. That information has been within the knowledge of the government. It has been taken into consideration in the design of the framework. In terms of the relevant markets that are part of that design, the relevant minister has advised the public of those matters.
Vocational Education and Training
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:10): My question is to be Minister for Schools, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is investing in vocational education to help train the apprentices and trainees that our economy needs today and in the future? What are the risks to this investment and how is the government addressing them?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (15:10): I thank the member for Kingston for her question. This government certainly understands the importance of investing in skills education. We are taking important steps to make sure that we improve the skills of Australian students. Yesterday I had the opportunity of meeting with the Australian Apprentice of the Year, Jason Bryan. I got a good sense from him of how much excitement there is amongst the trades and apprentices about the big effort that is coming from this government on skills training. Over the last three years, we have made an investment of some $10.9 billion in improving skills and training for our future workforce.
It is important to let the House know that we have also made significant investments specifically in vocational training itself, an investment of some $11 billion in three financial years—2008 to 2010. Of that, we have invested over $800 million in capital works upgrading and modernising hundreds of training facilities around the country. We have also invested significantly to make sure that the global financial crisis does not impact significantly on apprenticeships. We can see that we have very encouraging signs of an uptake in apprenticeships. We were sitting at around 448,000 apprenticeships in September 2010, the highest number ever recorded.
As well as that, we recognise that quite often when young Australians are in school they may not choose a higher education route. They might want to get into that skills pathway whilst they are still at school, so we are investing $37.5 million in creating national trade cadetships, providing a pathway with the Australian Curriculum for secondary school students who are interested in a career or a trade. I have spoken about our investment in trade training centres, some $2.5 billion over 10 years to enable every high school student in Australia to have access to a trade training centre. That is an important investment.
I was asked about the risks to the investment. I have to say that when it comes to political slogans—and I remember the three-word slogan 'Just Say No', which I think may have been President Reagan's wife's slogan—there is one that really gets members of the opposition going, and it is trade training centres. All you have to say is 'trade training centres' and they are out of the blocks like they are training for the London Olympics. I can inform the House that we continually see members of the opposition showing up at these trade training centre openings. We had the member for Mackellar at the Pittwater Hospitality Trade Training Centre on 28 June—she was very happy to attend. We had the member for Barker only a couple of weeks ago at the Lower Murray Trade Training Centre—very happy to attend. Of course, we had the member for Macquarie attending a centre, as was reported in the Hawkesbury Gazette of 23 March. There she is: 'Trade training centre unveiled'—I recognise that face.
The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister have put on record their cuts to education, which include cuts to the very trade training centres that opposition members cannot wait to be a part of the opening of. If you ever wanted a more significant comparison between a commitment to real policy that is helping young Australians and the hypocrisy of those opposite, this is it.
Carbon Pricing
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (15:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Murray-Goulburn, which produces this locally made butter, will be hit by her carbon tax while the company that makes this European butter is virtually exempt from the European emissions trading scheme? Prime Minister, how is this fair?
Government members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:15): I thank the member for his question. First and foremost I would say to the member that I know the opposition have been out there fundamentally distorting the impact of carbon pricing, and one of the areas they have been fundamentally distorting is the dairy industry, where they have been trying to pretend to people that there are big costs coming and have been trying to scare people. They believe it is all part of their political strategy and they do not want people to have the facts. In our carbon pricing package, as the member may have seen, there are streams of assistance that will be available to assist people. He may want to get some of that information. I doubt, for example, that he has been out in his electorate talking to pensioners about how they are going to benefit and get more money than they need to assist with the average impact of having priced carbon.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: there are 40,000 people directly employed in the dairy sector who want—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wannon knows that he cannot add to his question. On direct relevance, the Prime Minister is aware of her obligation. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Ms GILLARD: To the member who asked the question, I went to the question of assistance that we are providing to pensioners. Tax cuts and family payments are No. 1, because I doubt that he has bothered to inform his constituents of that. And No. 2: of course we are doing that because we expect that there will be some costs passed through on items where carbon pricing has had an effect. The amount of those flow-through costs is less than a cent in a dollar—it is 0.7 per cent of CPI. The Leader of the Opposition has been out misrepresenting that to the Australian people and saying that it is astronomical. It is 0.7 per cent of CPI, and people will have assistance as they meet those costs. Indeed, around four million Australian households will come out better off.
I am familiar with the electorate that the member represents. In that electorate particularly I think he should look at the compensation statistics and the way in which people will be assisted. We will continue to work with the dairy industry and get them the facts. They will never get them from the opposition. When we get them the facts, that will help them understand the modest impacts of carbon pricing as opposed to the fear campaign to which they have been subjected.
Finally, I would say to the member who asked the question: has he ever inquired of the Leader of the Opposition how the so-called direct action policy—the subsidy of polluters policy—is going to affect his electorate? Has he ever inquired about how it is going to be funded? The cost is $1,300 per family. Who is going to pay that? Has he ever asked whether the penalty clause in that policy will be leveraged against dairy farmers? Has he ever asked the Leader of the Opposition that? I suggest that he ask some of those questions because—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Prime Minister is wrapping up her answer.
Ms GILLARD: the Leader of the Opposition's policy is the most costly way of getting carbon abatement. The member has a choice to make. No. 1: does he support the minus five per cent target at 2020? Yes or no. The Leader of the Opposition says all things to all people—the member can make his own decision. If the decision is yes, he supports the target. No. 2: does he support doing it in the least costly way or hitting those dairy farmers and his constituents with the new and onerous burdens that the Leader of the Opposition is planning for them?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned.
Mental Health
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (15:19): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline the progress of the government's mental health reform package in delivering services to improve the lives of people living with a mental illness? What other approaches are there and what consequences would these have?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The unnecessary highlighting of things that are being mentioned by way of interjection I do not think is really helpful, if people really think about it.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) (15:20): I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. This year's budget delivered on the Prime Minister's commitment on mental health is $2.2 billion in new measures—the largest ever mental health package in this country's history. Last week's COAG meeting heard a presentation from three members of the government's expert working group—Professor Patrick McGorry, Monsignor Cappo and Frank Quinlan—on mental health reform. I am pleased to report that COAG has agreed to conclude a new national partnership agreement on mental health by the end of this year. It focuses on accommodation supports and emergency department arrangements in particular.
Meanwhile, states have been provided with our population modelling for future headspace sites for their comment to allow us to be in a position this calendar year to announce the next tranche of 15 headspace services. Discussions are also proceeding with state governments about our plans to roll out early psychosis centres or EPPICs with their support in their jurisdictions, and funding has started to flow to support up to 1,700 additional primary schools to take up the Kids Matter program to help kids build resilience and coping skills at that critical age
Divisions of general practice and new Medicare Locals are receiving huge increases in funding, to the tune of 87 per cent, to deliver counselling services to hard to reach groups in the population, including people identified at risk of suicide.
Unlike the opposition's policy in this area, which delivered not a jot for children and not a jot for adults experiencing mental illness, our package recognises the diverse impact of mental illness across the lifespan. Importantly in these challenging economic times, our package is properly costed and fully funded. The approach of the opposition, which I was asked about by the member for Wakefield, was essentially to say: 'If you want better mental health services in this country, we need to keep the broader health system back in the 20th century.' To pay for a policy that would deliver nothing for children and nothing for adults experiencing mental illness, the opposition would have junked e-health entirely, as the Minister for Health and Ageing has pointed out, leaving the broader health system instead to work on paper files forever. They would have trashed pricing reforms in the hospital system to deliver more efficient hospital services. Instead, they would have kept sending blank cheques to state governments every year. They would have withdrawn $350 million of funding for better GP infrastructure in local communities, and more. In total there would have been $1.4 billion of cuts to fund their mental health package. I note that is just one-fiftieth of the $70 billion of cuts that the now absent member for North Sydney has planned for our health services, our schools and our broader social services if he gets his way.
The opposition's approach in this area is wrongheaded and it is fanciful. The COAG meeting last week confirmed that you can have mental health reform and broader health reform and you should have both.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports in the Malaysian press that on Tuesday Malaysian police and RELA had beaten UNHCR card-holding refugees outside government offices, including children, mothers and the elderly who were among 10,000 refugees seeking to comply with the government registration program, and that refugees recognised by the UNHCR had their registration papers marked 'return to home country'. Is the Prime Minister aware of these reports? Does she stand by her minister's declaration under the Migration Act that Malaysia is a country that provides protection to refugees?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:25): You know they have had a bad question time when it comes to this. Yes, I do stand by the minister's statement.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance.
The SPEAKER: The member for Cook will resume his seat.
Mr Morrison: I asked if she was aware of the report—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cook will now leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Cook then left the chamber.
Gillard Government
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government delivering on its economic and legislative agenda? How has this been received? What is the government's response?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:26): I thank the Chief Government Whip for his question. We are concluding a parliamentary fortnight in which the government has got on with building the nation's future as the opposition has simply focused its sights on destroying the government. We have had our eyes focused on the future of millions of Australians; they have had their eyes focused on themselves, driven by self-interest every step of the way. We have had our eyes focused on prudent budget management; they have had their eyes focused in despair on trying to cover up a $70 billion black hole. We still do not know where the cuts are going to fall, how many pensioners are going to feel the pain, how many hospitals are going to feel the pain, how many schools are going to feel the pain and how much is going to be taken out of the defence of our nation. We just do not know.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Ms GILLARD: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, if he cannot take it, he should just keep moving back. We have been focused on managing the economy of this nation. We have been focused on working with the resources sector as it grows, hungry for workers, hungry for skills and hungry for infrastructure. We have been focused on working with those industries that are feeling the burden of the high Australian dollar—manufacturing, tourism and international education.
In this parliament we have passed 185 bills, remarkably 22 of them in the last fortnight. They have been world-leading bills like the plain paper packaging proposal, where, of course, we had to fight every step of the way to get the Liberal Party to break its addiction to big tobacco and do the right thing by Australians who suffer tobacco addiction. We have passed legislation for superannuation because Labor is and always will be the party of superannuation. We brought it in against the trenchant opposition of the Liberal Party. They fought it every step of the way. They said it would destroy Australian jobs. They said it would destroy the Australian economy. Does that sound familiar? The Liberal Party in full flight for a scare campaign. We have continued to deliver superannuation reform.
We have continued to deliver our agenda in child care. When we came to government no-one cared about the ability of early childhood education to change life chances and to make a difference for the most disadvantaged children. No-one cared about any of that and no-one cared about the pressure on working families as they paid their childcare costs. We are very proud that we have increased the childcare tax rebate to 50 per cent. We focus day after day on increasing the quality of early childhood education, which is good for all children, particularly good for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: I am not surprised that members opposite are talking through that, because life chances of Australian children do not motivate them at all. Then, of course, this week we have passed another NBN bill, and they want to rip the National Broadband Network out of the ground, and we passed a carbon farming bill, something they have opposed but now said they will not take away.
In the meantime the Liberal Party has been out advertising desperately trying to attract new candidates. I suspect the curriculum, if you want to be a Liberal Party candidate, is just learn to say 'No', and to help them on their way I table how to say 'No' in 500 languages. It will come in very handy for them. (Time expired)
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (15:30): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr OAKESHOTT: I do, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr OAKESHOTT: An article in the Australian yesterday under the title 'Sick of the drivel' grossly misquoted me from a speech to the National Press Club on 25 August 2010. Attributed as direct quotations were a medley of quotations taken from other sources in a cut-and-paste collage of misinformation. Of the 157 words used in a key quotation attributed to me personally, only 44 of those words were actually spoken out of my mouth; 15 per cent of those words, including 'they can damn well change the Woolworths-Coles democracy', were actually those of the member for Kennedy.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT: That is the misrepresentation. Thirty-five per cent of those attributed to me as direct quotes, including 'if you people are sick of the nonsense you've had to put up with', were those of the member for New England. Even more concerning, nearly one-quarter of the article—again attributed to me as a direct quotation, including 'I'm hearing the optimism, I'm hearing the new paradigm vibe'—was in truth the actual words of the Australian's own chief political correspondent, Matthew Franklin, in his very own question at the Press Club on that day.
There can be little doubt that this menagerie of misquotations from four separate sources goes beyond simple research error and once again raises questions over agendas within political reporting of some publications via misrepresentation.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (15:33): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes, most grievously, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Today in question time and in last night's debate the health minister claimed that I said smoking is fun. That same claim is made in today's Adelaide Advertiser. What I actually said was that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing were 'fun police', and the Hansard will attest that I did not say anywhere that smoking is fun. As someone who has lost a grandmother and whose father has lost a leg because of cancer, I am most offended at this assertion and the link to Daffodil Day.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER: I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 30 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 18 to 24 August 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 24 August 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of Laws) Bill 2011
Standing Committee on Economics:
Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2011.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
The SPEAKER: I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 2 of 2011-2012 entitled Confidentiality in government contracts: Senate order for departmental and agency contracts (calendar year 2010 compliance).
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE: Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Ministerial statements—Manufacturing—Senator Carr, Minister for Innovation, Science and Research, 24 August 2011.
Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003—Quarterly reports on the operation of the Act for the period—
1 October to 31 December 2010.
1 January to 31 March 2011.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Regional Australia Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER: I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Haase to be a member of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia in place of Dr Stone.
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That Dr Stone be discharged from the Standing Committee on Regional Australia and that, in her place, Mr Haase be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Families
The SPEAKER (15:36): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact of the Government's failures in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:36): After one of the most extraordinarily graceless prime ministerial performances in question time that this House has seen in many a long year, it is worth reminding the House of the words of the current Prime Minister just a few years earlier. Just a few years ago in 2006 the now Prime Minister, then a senior Labor frontbencher, said:
We have to remember that question time is supposed to be one of our key accountability mechanisms. If there is a big scandal or a corruption allegation, you are supposed to be able to get the matter in question time, and it is not serving that role now.
That was the statement by the member for Lawler—then a frontbencher, now a Prime Minister—and she should be judged and condemned by her own words. We have seen an extraordinary display today: a bristling, petulant performance from the Prime Minister, who is trying to insist that, of all people, George Brandis—the shadow Attorney-General—in some way has serious questions to answer and serious statements to make on the subject of improper behaviour and that the member for Dobell does not. Also, the claim was seriously advanced by the Prime Minster today that Senator Mary Jo Fisher, who suffers from depression and is facing her day in court, is somehow equivalent to the member for Dobell, who has run away from his day in court and got the Labor Party to pay his legal fees. It was an absolutely disgraceful performance by this Prime Minister in question time today.
This week marks the first anniversary of the election that nobody won, least of all the Australian people. In the 12 months since last year's election, thanks to the Greens and Independents, who put this government back into office, we Australians have been saddled with a bad government that is getting worse every day. The great economist Adam Smith said that 'there is a lot of ruin in a nation', and indeed a bad government eventually produces very bad outcomes for the Australian people. Increasingly in recent months we have seen the dividends of an incompetent government that has the Midas touch in reverse. We have seen out of control borders—I remind the House that over the last 12 months we have seen 99 boats with more than 5,600 illegal arrivals come to our shores. We also have a Prime Minister with out of control integrity—she said before the election that there would never be a Pacific solution from this government and that detaining illegal arrivals offshore was 'costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle'. Yet what is she doing now? As we learned today, she is proposing to send boat people who arrive in this country back to Malaysia, where, according to reports, they are subject to increasing brutality from Malaysian police and others.
We have had the surplus that will never happen, and $150 billion worth of deficits that have well and truly happened. We now have waste on an epic scale. We thought that the school hall waste could not possibly be repeated, but now we have the biggest white elephant of them all: the National Broadband Network. Not only did the infrastructure tender to collapse but also the Chief Financial Officer of the NBN Co. has today been forced to resign, which surely presages more waste and incompetence. Then, of course, there is that which most grieves the Australian people: increasing evidence of serious job losses to come in the manufacturing industry. There are the BlueScope job losses, the OneSteel job losses, the Qantas job losses and the Westpac job losses. What is this government doing about the steel industry? The steel industry advocate position has been unfilled for nine months, and the Steel Industry Innovation Council did not meet for six months. This government has a Prime Minister in hiding and a member in protection, and, increasingly, it is paralysed in the face of the problems which bedevil this country because of its own incompetence.
This government is lurching from crisis to crisis. It has a Prime Minister who lacks the courage or the integrity to force the member for Dobell to answer elementary questions—the questions which Kathy Jackson of the Health Services Union knows need to be answered. What did we see from the Prime Minister in question time today? Nothing but contempt—she has not the slightest shred of sympathy or the slightest skerrick of fellow feeling for a brave woman who wants to see the right thing done. What is the Prime Minister doing? Nothing but vituperation and stonewalling. It is graceless, unbecoming and demeaning of the high office which the Prime Minister holds.
The government is rapidly revealing all of the dysfunction and lack of principle which characterised the late New South Wales Labor government. So why should we be surprised when we see the Prime Minister and other senior members of the government lining up now to excuse the inexcusable and defend the indefensible that we have seen reported in connection with the member for Dobell? It is New South Wales sleaze which has now come into the heart of this government and which this Prime Minister and senior members of this government are so desperate to defend. This is a government which has no plan for our country. It has a plan to survive, not a plan to govern, and the Australian people deserve so much better.
Since December 2007, the cost of living pressures on the forgotten families of Australia have only got worse. Since December 2007, electricity prices around this country have gone up 49 per cent. Water prices have gone up 46 per cent. Education costs have gone up 24 per cent. Health costs have gone up 22 per cent. Rent has gone up 22 per cent and food has gone up 15 per cent. Mortgage repayments now cost $500 a month more for the average home loan than they did just a couple of years ago. It is no wonder that the Australian people look back to the time of the former government as a golden age of economic growth that has now been lost, because, since members opposite came into power, GDP-per-head growth has been less than one-half of one per cent a year compared to well over two per cent a year under the former government—and it is just going to get worse with the big new taxes that this government has in store for us. The carbon tax is going to go up and up and up. It is a bad tax based on a lie; yet this is at the heart of this government's plan for our country. Even on the government's own figures, the carbon tax is going to leave well over three million Australian households worse off—and these are not rich people, by any means; these are not people who are importing yachts and motor cruisers. Take, for example, a school teacher married to a shop assistant. They will be worse off under the government's carbon tax package, even on the government's own figures. A policeman married to a part-time nurse will be worse off under the government's carbon tax, even on the government's own figures.
But the worse thing about this carbon tax, which is going to wreak havoc with the way every single Australian lives and works, is that it is not actually going to do its job. The whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What is the point of a carbon tax if it does not actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Yet here in black and white on page 18 of the government's own document, Strong growth, low pollution—modelling a carbon price, we are told that our emissions are 578 million tonnes now and in 2020, with a carbon price of $29 tonne, they are not going down; they are going up to 621 million tonne.
Members opposite like to boast—oh, don't they like to boast!—about their 'fantastic target'. Everything this government does is 'the best thing that has ever happened'—it is historic; it is magnificent; it is stupendous! Gough Whitlam never did anything, Bob Hawke never did anything and Paul Keating never did anything! Nothing happened until this mob came along—aren't they great! But do you know what we are going to get in 2050 with a carbon price of $131 a tonne? A carbon tax of $131 a tonne is going to reduce our emissions from 578 million tonne now to, wait for it, 545 million tonne. That is not an 80 per cent reduction.
I thought this had to be a misprint. I have been looking every day for erratum slips to start appearing in the government's own documents. But, no, this is what they are going to achieve. They are going to impose a $131 a tonne carbon tax—more than five times what it is proposed to be in the middle of next year—for what? For a reduction in our emissions of about six per cent. They want to turn the way we live and the way we work upside down—for what? A six per cent reduction in our emissions. How is that going to save the world? If people knew what this mob were planning, they would laugh them out of office this very instant.
But it just gets worse. The Prime Minister tells us that this carbon tax is going to create jobs left, right and centre and transform the steel industry into something magnificent. You can just imagine a steel mill run on solar power and a motor plant running on windmills. Aren't we going to have a great steel industry and a great car industry in this country? Look at the government's own figures. On the government's own figures, our gross national income per person will be nearly $5,000 less under a carbon tax than it would otherwise be. This is a carbon tax that is going to cost jobs big-time and wreak havoc with the standard of living of the Australian people. It is not going to reduce carbon emissions and it will, on the government's own figures, impoverish us. This is an act of economic lunacy; yet it is all this government has to offer.
But we know that in her heart of hearts not even this Prime Minister believes it. We know what she really believes, because during the break Geoff Kitney told us. What she really believes is that you can achieve a five per cent reduction in emissions through the coalition's direct action plan. That is what she really believes. That is the secret memo that she gave to other members of the inner cabinet just before she conspired to politically assassinate the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.
This is a truly bad government. Members opposite like to say that everything they do is historic. Well, this is a historic government all right! It is historically the worst. It is historically the worst we have ever seen. Those people who merely say that it is the worst since Gough Whitlam are wrong. They are being totally unfair to Gough Whitlam—who did not lack idealism and who never sold his soul to the Greens and Senator Bob Brown. This is the worst government ever. It lacks integrity; it lacks ideals; it lacks honesty; and it should be gone—and, increasingly, that is what the Australian people want. Be gone!
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women) (15:51): Doesn't it just say it all that the Leader of the Opposition moves a matter of public importance on forgotten families and he forgets to mention families? This was supposed to be all about Australian families but, instead, the Leader of the Opposition talked about the member for Dobell; he talked about Senator Fisher; he talked about the Pacific Solution; and he continued his here, there and everywhere strategy on carbon dioxide. He forgot to talk about the very thing that he is pretending to care about here today, and that is Australian families. We have heard enough of the rhetoric, we have heard the negativity, we have heard the attacks—the easy opportunism—of the opposition leader, and now it is time that we inserted some reality into this discussion. It is time we actually—wait for it—talked about some policy, and it is time that we actually mentioned Australian families and what this government is doing to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australian families.
I must say that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition moved a Matter of Public Importance on forgotten families and then forgot to mention them is not the only element of irony that we have seen here today, because there is an intense irony when one considers the very last vote that this chamber undertook today. And then the Leader of the Opposition had the gall to talk about forgotten families. We know that there is a precedent for this. He failed to mention them today, but at least in his budget reply speech the Leader of the Opposition dropped a quick sound bite about forgotten families. But when it came to the vote he forgot them.
Today, the very last division that took place in this chamber was where the coalition voted against a measure which will allow an extra $59 million to be invested in delivering quality child care for some of Australia's most vulnerable children. Let's talk about the forgotten families now. That funding, which passed through this House, I am happy to say, with the support of all except those in the coalition, will be invested in 140 budget based childcare services across the country. These are the services which the government funds because they operate in communities where a commercial childcare centre may not be deemed viable. They are in communities where there is a need for us to step in and make sure that the neediest children in Australia do not miss out, but those opposite decided today that they wanted to vote against that. These services generally operate in rural, regional and remote areas. They often have an Indigenous focus and they service some of the most vulnerable children and those in the most disadvantaged families in this country. We are making sure that these families are not the forgotten families, and the Leader of the Opposition forgot to mention them today. We know that these are the very children who potentially have the most to gain from the critical early learning experiences that they receive whilst they are in child care.
Those who voted against this measure said today, just before question time, that it is more important to give the very small percentage of families across Australia—mostly on higher incomes and using large amounts of quality child care—more than $7,500 per child per year than it is to provide the most basic childcare services and infrastructure for the some of the most disadvantaged children in the community. These disadvantaged children are in families that this government will not forget. This government believes in supporting those families. We believe that they are entitled to early education and care for their children, and we have not forgotten them, unlike the forgetfulness those opposite displayed earlier today. Nor will we forget and ignore the almost 800,000 Australian families who place their kids in care each week, as the coalition did when in government—and as we heard about from the Prime Minister earlier in question time. So, far from forgetting families, this is why we increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses up to an annual cap of $7,500 per child per year. The opposition, when they were in government, were quite happy for this cap—the cap that they said today could not possibly stay at $7,500—to reach a maximum of just $4,354. Far from forgetting these families, we have made a 72 per cent increase in what is available in terms of government funding than what was available under the Howard government, and that is something that on this side of the House we stand proud of.
Those opposite go scaremongering about the costs of child care in the community. As a result of the investment, the proportion of family income that is being spent on child care has almost halved since 2004. We know that families making the family budget come together can often find it difficult when looking for the hard earned dollars to pay their bills, but we also know that in 2004 13 per cent of the average family income for families with one child in care was being spent on child care. That is for families on $55,000 a year. From 13 per cent in 2004, it now stands at seven per cent of their family income. It is a dramatic difference and something that we have done to ensure that these families are not forgotten.
We also promised to pay the childcare rebate quarterly, and we have delivered on our commitment. Then, further, we promised to pay the rebate fortnightly, and we have delivered on that commitment. This is making it easier for thousands of parents to balance the family budget, because they now receive their childcare assistance at the same time that the bills fall due. Overall, this government is investing a record $20 billion over the next four years for early childhood education and care. This includes some $16.4 billion to help Australian families meet the cost of their child care, through either the childcare benefit or, indeed, the childcare rebate. In contrast, this is more than double the funding amount offered under the previous government.
Beyond child care, this government is ensuring that we do not forget the Australian families who are out there doing it tough. We are committed to supporting Australian families to participate in society and we are committed to ensuring that they can balance their work with the important job of raising their children. That is why we will spend around $20 billion on family tax benefit, the baby bonus and paid parental leave. We are proud that the 2011-12 budget includes new cost-of-living support for families—families that the Leader of the Opposition deemed forgotten families and then forgot to even mention when he was meant to be talking about them. We are delivering on our election commitment to increase family tax benefit part A by up to $161 per fortnight for teenagers aged 16 to 19 who are in full-time secondary study from 1 January 2012. We are delivering. The families of around 650,000 children turning 16 over the next five years may be eligible for up to $4,200 in increased assistance if their children stay in school, because we know that is the best thing for Australian families.
From 1 July families have access to more flexible arrangements for advance payments of their family tax benefit to help with unexpected costs, such as the family car breaking down. On 1 January, we delivered Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme. Eligible working parents who adopt a baby on or after 1 January 2011 are now able to receive 18 weeks parental leave pay at the national minimum wage, currently around $590 a week. So while those opposite come in here, play politics, choose to talk about the member for Dobell, Senator Fisher or any of the other things that the Leader of the Opposition was rabbiting on about, we are getting on with the job of delivering to and supporting Australian families. We know that around 85,000 working parents have applied for paid parental leave so far and around 33,000 parents are receiving it right now. For families that are not eligible for paid parental leave we are continuing the baby bonus, currently $5,437 a year, to assist them with the extra costs associated with a new or adopted child. Also, from 1 July, the education tax refund has been extended to cover the costs of school uniforms, another measure that we have put in place to help Australian families balance their budgets.
This government is committed to assisting families who are experiencing disruption to their lives or who may need additional support or work to raise their children. We have the new Family Support Program, which offers greater support to the most vulnerable in our community and helps to build more resilient families and communities, with $335.2 million committed for family service providers in 2010-11. But we also know, when talking about forgotten families, that there are different experiences in different parts of Australia. Different families are coping with different circumstances. Some are doing quite well, but we also acknowledge that there are parts of Australia where families are particularly struggling. This government has stood up and said, 'These families will not be forgotten by this government.' We know that nothing is more important for dealing with household bills than having a secure job, a decent wage in a safe workplace, which is why we have worked hard to create over 750,000 jobs in Australia since coming to office.
Yet, sadly, we also know that there are still members of our community who have been unemployed for too long, and that is why this government has said: 'We will not walk away from you. We will ensure that you will not get left behind.' We want to give them a second chance, which is why we have put record levels of funding into our employment services. It is why, at priority employment areas right across Australia where we know that there are particularly tough circumstances, we have put in place additional measures, local employment coordinators and funds so that they can have jobs expos so that the government can stand shoulder to shoulder with the Australian families who are doing it toughest.
We know that the Australian economy needs more workers if it is going to successfully take advantage of the minerals boom and manage the challenges of our ageing population, which is why we have also announced measures to ensure that those Australians who join the ranks of the very long-term unemployed now have more assistance than ever before. We have put in place new wage subsidies in the most recent budget so that we can help move people back into employment. We are investing more into our disability employment providers by setting up new wage subsidies that they can offer and by working with employers to change the stigma. We will make sure that those who have been forgotten in the past will not be forgotten anymore. We can ensure that those who have been at risk of staying on the margins—the very long-term unemployed, mature age workers and the disabled—can step into employment and enjoy the comparatively favourable circumstances in the Australian economy.
We know that when we are talking about forgotten families that the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to every Australian family's future. He is a risk to jobs and he is a risk to workplace protections. He opposed the stimulus package; he would have thrown 200,000 Australians onto dole queues. We know, and we continually hear the rumbling from the opposition backbench, there is nothing that would bring the opposition more happiness than to bring back Work Choices.
Beyond that, the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to the budget. He went to the last election with an $11 billion black hole, which we now see has blown out to $70 billion. He is a risk to basic services that ordinary families rely upon in our community. He has promised cuts already to computers in schools, to trades training centres, to GP superclinics and the after-hours GP hotline, and to the National Broadband Network, which we know is so important to our economy and particularly to many of our regions. He is a risk to the cost of living. His fiscal recklessness would only add to price pressures in the economy. He would want to bring back bank exit fees. We know, and we heard in his contribution earlier, that under his climate change policy each household would have to pay an average of $720 more in taxes, and that he would give that money—money from Australian families and hardworking taxpayers—straight to the big polluters themselves. He will say anything he needs to in order to get the five-second sound grab on the television news, but when it comes to standing in this place and taking action or voting accordingly to make sure the interests of Australian families are considered or to anything beyond rhetoric, the Leader of the Opposition proves, and proved again today, that he is all spin and no substance.
Australian families, which he forgot to even mention in his matter of public importance contribution on forgotten families, deserve better. They deserve a government that is committed to supporting them with the costs of living. They deserve the delivery of quality services that they rely on. They deserve our assistance to help them into jobs and for us to continue to create jobs in the Australian economy, like the 750,000 that have been created since we came to government. This is exactly what the Gillard Labor government is doing. It is exactly what we intend to do, and we will ensure that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Australian families that are at risk of being forgotten if the Leader of the Opposition ever made his way onto this side of the chamber. (Time expired)
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:06): There is a deficit at the heart of this government. There is a deficit at the heart of the government that performed so shamefully in question time today. I am not talking about the national budget deficit, the accumulated $150 billion budget deficit delivered by a government that, when in opposition, promised the Australian people that they were committed to budget surpluses. I am talking about a deficit of leadership at the heart of this government. I am talking about a deficit of trust in this government amongst the Australian people. It is not surprising though that there is a deficit of trust because this government is based on a deliberate and duplicitous statement made by the Prime Minister prior to the last election on the issue of a carbon tax.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The use of the term by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 'deliberate and duplicitous' is outside the standing orders and I would ask her to withdraw.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker. She made a deliberate and calculated statement—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader has to withdraw the disorderly statement.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I withdraw. She made a deliberate and calculated statement designed to mislead the Australian people.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is not able to say that the Prime Minister made a statement 'designed to mislead'. That is disorderly and I would ask her to withdraw.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I withdraw. Let me come to the Prime Minister's performance in question time today. This Prime Minister likes to talk about leadership principles. At the recent launch of former Victoria Police commissioner Christine Nixon's memoirs, the Prime Minister lauded Ms Nixon as:
… person of integrity who opposed corruption at every turn.
The Prime Minister said the book was 'a record of Christine's leadership'. These are traits that the Prime Minister clearly admires in others but has not adopted for herself.
We have heard repeatedly this week that the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Dobell. She accepts his explanation for the use of his union credit card to pay for escort services, cash advances and tens of thousands of dollars on his election campaign—reportedly undeclared to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Prime Minister apparently does not want the member for Dobell to provide that explanation to the people of Australia, let alone to the members of the Health Services Union.
This week the coalition has attempted to provide the member for Dobell with every opportunity to speak under parliamentary privilege to the Australian people and the tens of thousands of members of the Health Services Union about the explanation he gave the Prime Minister in relation to these allegations, the explanation upon which the Prime Minister bases her full confidence in the member for Dobell. Yes, last night the national secretary of the Health Services Union said:
Anyone in our organisation who misuses union money—be it for prostitution services or other unauthorised services—has committed a crime and in particular has defrauded the membership.
The Prime Minister should inform the Australian people whether she believes that such conduct would constitute fraudulent and criminal behaviour. We are unlikely to know. As Kathy Jackson said of the member for Dobell:
... he should go on the record and repeat those statements ... He owes it to the members of the Health Services Union.
The Prime Minister does not respect the wishes of the Health Services Union members, the tens of thousands of members of that union who Kathy Jackson described as:
... working-class people, they earn less than $20 an hour doing work that nobody else wants to do ... These people are salt of the earth. These people deserve answers ...
Yet the Prime Minister has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the member for Dobell and to prevent him from giving a statement to this parliament under parliamentary privilege.
We are not talking about a few dollars here and a few dollars there; we are talking about the systematic and calculated defrauding of what the union claims to be over $100,000. Under this Prime Minister, Labor has made every effort to hide these allegations and protect the member for Dobell from scrutiny.
Mr McClelland: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: with respect to the deputy leader, she is quite entitled to speak in general terms, but she is not entitled to make assertions if they are directed at an individual member without an appropriate notice of motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. I will ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to observe the standing orders.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: As I was saying, under this Prime Minister's leadership, Labor has made every effort to hide these allegations.
After the defamation action collapsed, Labor stepped in to pay the member for Dobell's legal bills and presumably struck a deal with Fairfax to suppress further reporting of the matter. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions on this issue, but the Australian people are entitled to ask: who advised the Health Services Union to inexplicably refer the matter of the misuse of union credit cards to Fair Work Australia? It is inexplicable, as the Attorney-General would know, because it would appear that a matter of fraud should have been referred to the New South Wales Police. What jurisdictions does Fair Work Australia have over a fraud investigation? Perhaps it might make some sense when one realises the connection between officials in Fair Work Australia and the Labor Party.
According to the Health Services Union, this issue was referred to Fair Work Australia more than two years ago yet there has been no progress in terms of a finding. There are many questions that need to be answered about this slow-moving fraud investigation and the Prime Minister has failed to show any inclination to come clean about this matter. It goes to the very heart of the deficit of leadership and the deficit of trust that the Australian people have in this Prime Minister.
We know from Senate estimates that there has been contact between the government and Fair Work Australia about this matter, but the Prime Minister has refused to detail that contact. When asked about it today, she avoided answering the question, so it remains unanswered. These questions will continue to dog the Prime Minister beyond next week, beyond the week after and until parliament returns. Did anyone in the government advise the union to refer the matter to Fair Work Australia? If so, what was the legal basis for that advice? Why was the matter regarding the member for Dobell—this was two years after he was elected as member—referred to Fair Work Australia and not to the police? What has been the nature of discussions between members of the government and officers of Fair Work Australia? This investigation has been going on for two years. It has been reported that the general manager of Fair Work Australia is a factional ally of the Prime Minister and was appointed by this government in 2009 to be responsible for Fair Work Australia.
Mr McClelland: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, again imputations are being made against an officer of the Commonwealth and if those sorts of imputations are going to be made, that they have acted—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will resume his seat. There is no point of order.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: The National Secretary of the Health Services Union, Kathy Jackson, has said that the investigation of allegations against the member for Dobell by Fair Work Australia was far too slow. I asked the Prime Minister today to detail the contact between her as Prime Minister or in her former role as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, or the contact of her staff or any minister and their staff with officials of Fair Work Australia. She not only avoided the question but the Prime Minister appeared slippery and shifty. She will not say what has gone on between Fair Work Australia and the Prime Minister's office over this investigation. But should we be surprised by this lack of principle on the part of the Prime Minister? We know how the Prime Minister came to office. She had promised faithfully as Deputy Prime Minister that she would never challenge the Prime Minister for the leadership of this country prior to the last election. She was specifically asked on radio on 10 May 2010:
So will you promise you will not be leader at the next federal election?
Julia Gillard:
I can, completely. … this is, you know, it makes good copy for newspapers but it is not within cooee of my day-to-day reality. You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars. No I'm not...
So how can the Australian people believe anything this Prime Minister says? She misled her leader into believing she would never challenge him for the leadership, and challenge she did. She stood before the Australian people at the last election and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would, before calling the honourable member for Fraser, just remind all honourable members that, while this is a wide-ranging matter of public importance debate, we are as a parliament debating the impact of the government's failures in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families. Families, of course, are the subject of this particular matter of public importance.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:17): The motion before the House today refers to Australia's forgotten families. It is clear where that reference from the Leader of the Opposition comes from. It is a hearkening back to the great Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party. What the Liberal Party want to do today is to say that they have some of the policy credibility of Robert Menzies. The Leader of the Opposition is in fact the Sarah Palin of Australian politics. He is willing to say anything, to do anything, to wreck the economy.
I know a little bit about the Menzies government, and the Leader of the Opposition is no Robert Menzies. Robert Menzies opened up Australian trade with Japan. The Leader of the Opposition would start a trade war with New Zealand. Any chance he gets he will fearmonger about foreigners investing in Australian agriculture. Robert Menzies established the Colombo Plan to bring young Australians to help build a better region. The Leader of the Opposition would scrap aid to Indonesian schools. Robert Menzies began the initial steps of dismantling the White Australia policy. The Leader of the Opposition refers to 'boat people' and he wants to turn back boats to who knows where.
Robert Menzies was committed to Canberra, this fine city that I am proud to represent. The Leader of the Opposition would strip 12,000 jobs out of the Public Service, which the ACT government estimates would drop the employment rate in the ACT by six per cent once you factor in the flow-on effects. The Leader of the Opposition would happily send Canberra into recession. Robert Menzies believed in respect, believed in treating all people with decency. Any time he thinks he can get away with it the Leader of the Opposition will just slip in a reference using the Prime Minister's first name. He is always happy to use the Prime Minister's first name if he thinks he can slip it past whoever is in the chair.
Robert Menzies massively expanded the CSIRO and massively expanded the scientific research base in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition attacks scientists, describes climate change as 'absolute crap' and thinks CO2 is weightless. But there is, I suppose, some similarity. After all, Robert Menzies made a lot of his career on attacking communists but won the 1961 election on communist preferences. The opposition leader for a while bankrolled court cases against One Nation but now is quite happy to address extremist rallies with their signs about 'new world government' and misogyny.
But the motion before the House today goes to Australia's families and it is worth running through some of the achievements of the Gillard government to date in delivering for Australian families. In the global financial crisis we put in place timely, targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus that saved 200,000 jobs. Those opposite would have been happy to see young lives blighted by unemployment. Their view is that you would never take on any debt, so no stimulus because it would send the budget into debt. No matter that most of the debt is actually in revenue downgrades—that is what happens in a recession: you get less revenue. So those opposite would have taken the Herbert Hoover approach—they would have slashed government spending as the recession hit. That is right; as the private sector scaled back, their view was that the government should have scaled back as well. What a disaster that would have been. The Gillard government and the Rudd government have seen 750,000 jobs created since we came to office—three quarters of a million jobs with the pay packets and the dignity that goes with work. We put in place the largest increase to the pension since it was introduced: $128 a fortnight for single pensioners and $116 a fortnight for pensioner couples. It is a little bit more money for those who are doing it tough in Australia. We have got rid of Work Choices, to make sure Australians get a fair go at work and to make sure that Australians have the rights that they deserve. For Australians with children in care, and that includes me, we have increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, recognising that this is a rebate that helps families and boosts labour force participation by females.
We have put in place paid parental leave and we have launched My School 2.0 in an unprecedented wave of education reforms. We have trade training centres rolling out across the country, recognising that we have to start investing in trade skills for the next generation and that we can do so while children are at school. I am particularly proud of the trade training centre here in the ACT, which is a consortium of schools, including some on the north side. There is the national curriculum, which ensures that those thousands of Australians with children in school who move across state borders have the opportunity for those children to continue their education. And there is a new health deal that is, frankly, the biggest health reform since Medicare.
There are all of these achievements, and yet there is a major agenda for the future. We are putting a price on carbon because we know the scientists tell us that climate change is happening and the economists tell us that a price on dangerous carbon pollution is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
We are putting in place a big health reform agenda: e-health and investment in hospitals. In immigration, we have a regional solution through the Bali process. It has two aims: firstly, to increase the number of humanitarian migrants that come to Australia, and boosting that intake by 1,000 a year; and, secondly, to ensure that we send the right disincentives to people smugglers and make sure that fewer kids die on the seas between Indonesia and Australia. No-one wants to see a repeat of the Christmas Island tragedy, and the Malaysian agreement is aimed at ensuring just that.
We have major reforms with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, aged care and mental health: issues that were long regarded as the third rail of Australian politics—too dangerous to touch. We have major reports on those issues and we are setting about the consultations with states and territories to make them happen. On superannuation: we are boosting retirement savings because we know that Australians need a little bit more in the bank when they get to retirement. Fifteen per cent superannuation is good enough for those opposite. They are happy to give themselves 15 per cent—I do not see them moving any motions, saying: 'No, no, no! Don't let us have 15 per cent. Let's drop parliamentarians' super back down to nine per cent.' But nine per cent is good enough for ordinary Australians in the view of those opposite. We do not believe that. Labor is the party that put in place superannuation in the early nineties over the objections of those opposite. And Labor is the party that is now boosting superannuation to 12 per cent.
As was highlighted in question time, those opposite are happy to turn out to openings of new school buildings. Senator Gary Humphries joins me from time to time when I am opening new school buildings in my electorate. I am sure he is proud to be there, opening those new school buildings. But those opposite attack the school hall program generally. They are happy to take a swipe at the whole program but are also delighted to turn up for the photo op when it is happening. We see exactly the same in trade training centres.
We see a clear contrast on the big issues in Australian politics. We want Australians to get a fair share of the minerals that are their birthright. The opposition thinks that miners pay too much tax. We are committed to global trade and committed to the notion that Australia has always prospered as a small, open economy engaged with the world. They want to start a trade war with New Zealand. We are committed to rapid fiscal consolidation and clear budget rules. They have a $70 billion black hole, which is going to look even blacker when we have a Parliamentary Budget Office and there really will be nowhere to hide on those costings—no way of going to an election with an $11 billion hidden black hole as they did at the last election. Of course that $11 billion black hole at the last election looks pretty modest set against the $70 billion black hole that the opposition now faces.
We want to put a price on carbon pollution because we know, as all sensible policy makers do, that going to the heart of the problem is the right way to solve it. They want to put in place a direct action scheme. Maybe it is because they do not actually understand this stuff. Of course, there was the classic interview in which the Leader of the Opposition asked:
If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?
But the thing that surprised me most, as an economist, is the next bit:
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more, then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate?
I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition was thinking at that point, but if you did it that way it is actually true that the assistance would undo the price effects. But that is not what anyone is proposing. We are proposing generous household compensation, untied to your carbon tax bill.
We want to put in place world-beating health policy on cigarettes. Those opposite think that smoking is fun, and say things like, 'Well, life kills'. (Time expired)
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (16:27): In the few very short minutes that I have, I want to reflect on the MPI and the proposition that in fact the government has failed in policy and leadership in respect of Australia's forgotten families.
Mr Speaker, as you know, in this place debate can be robust. In this place there is a contest of ideas but there is also a contest of values, and that is just as important as the contest of policy and ideas. The contest of values is based on the fact that the people who stand at this dispatch box and promulgate a view are in fact also the leaders of the nation. They are the people who are expected to set the benchmark for behaviour, for honesty, for integrity and for the enunciation of good principles.
What has been most disappointing to me this week is that the values of the Prime Minister and the government should have been so absent. They have been missing, and the great fallout from that behaviour is in fact Australia's forgotten families. Whether it be through the loss of jobs or, consistently, the loss of confidence, the loss of opportunity or the removal of reward for risk through higher taxes and more regulation, this is a government that is now consistently denying the best interests of the Australian people and focusing only on its own interest—that is, the protection of its power in this place.
Its own base is now walking away from it. For a major Australian union to walk away from the Labor Party as it did this week—for proper and fully understood reasons—is a significant event, because union leaders are putting the interests of their members—the working poor—ahead of the interests of Julia Gillard. If the Prime Minister does not realise that, by being bereft of values and principles, she is now reflecting poorly on the unions and the working poor then she, sadly, misunderstands her own country.
The SPEAKER: Order! The time for this discussion has now expired.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Morcombe, Daniel
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Deputy Speaker) (16:30): I wish to speak on the latest developments in the case of missing Sunshine Coast teenager Daniel Morcombe and the incredible courage and strength of his parents, Denise and Bruce. Daniel's disappearance and believed murder has become a story of national and international focus. Most of the nation knows of his parents, who have demonstrated amazing tenacity since his disappearance in December 2003. They have never let the case go cold and they continually campaign to ensure that it has never been far from the thoughts of people across Australia. Their tenacity has paid off. The most recent developments in the case have been well publicised. A 41-year-old man was charged over the matter and faced court on 15 August. He is charged with murder, deprivation of liberty, child stealing, indecent treatment of a child under 16 and interfering with a corpse. I phoned Denise Morcombe soon after the news to offer my prayers, condolences and good wishes and to wish the Morcombes strength during the next phase of a case that will again test their strength. The former Prime Minister and current Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Griffith, contacted me soon after the news of the arrest and asked me to pass on to the Morcombes the sympathy and support of him and his wife, Therese, and I did that. A search has subsequently been conducted by SES volunteers and police of a specific area of bushland not far from Beerwah in my electorate, and the search has located some shoes of a type worn by Daniel when he disappeared and also human bones, which are now being tested to determine if they do in fact belong to Daniel.
After Daniel's disappearance, Denise and Bruce launched the Daniel Morcombe Foundation as a vehicle to promote the child safety message and also highlight the ongoing investigation into their son's disappearance. These latest developments do not diminish the importance of the child safety message, and I applaud Bruce and Denise for the way they have worked since Daniel's disappearance to help ensure that other families do not experience the tragedy and loss that they have.
This year I am again encouraging all members and senators in the Australian parliament, and also members of other parliaments around Australia and across the Tasman, to help commemorate the Day for Daniel, which this year will be held on 3 November in the Australian parliament. The Day for Daniel is usually held on 28 October, but that is not a parliamentary sitting day, so after consultation with Bruce and Denise Morcombe the Day for Daniel in the Australian parliament will be held on 3 November. On the Sunshine Coast the Day for Daniel includes considerable events to highlight the cause, and I encourage all honourable members this year to participate in the Day for Daniel. Last year it was very successful, with the involvement of the Prime Minister; the Leader of the Opposition; you, Mr Speaker; the Treasurer; the Leader of the House; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the Manager of Opposition Business; and many others. They wore either a black scarf or an item of red clothing. I will be contacting all members and senators shortly to ask them to put this event in their diaries and to remember to wear an item of red on that day to support this important cause. Members who would like to acquire scarves or ties can do so through my office and, by doing so, make a donation to the important work of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation.
Bruce and Denise have experienced the most terrible loss that any parent could experience. As a parent myself I have some understanding, although no-one can have a complete understanding of what they have gone through during the many years which have elapsed since 2003. I do, however, see them as role models and icons in our society because of the way that they have gone out of their way to ensure that other families do not experience similar loss. They are wonderful Australians and I applaud them.
Australian Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:35): When I was seeking election in August last year I made a promise to my community that I would be a strong advocate for Canberra and for Canberrans. Today I keep that promise to defend them against the outrageous attacks on their livelihoods from those opposite. I am, of course, referring to the disgraceful and unnecessary attacks by the member for North Sydney on those people employed in the Public Service.
In my first speech in this chamber I extolled the contribution made by the Public Service to the people of Australia. I said:
…we also sleep soundly in our beds because invisible heroes ensure our national interests are protected abroad. Others protect our borders. Some make sure our cities and towns are safe. Others make sure our food is clean and keep our lights on. Some help the sick, the aged, the disadvantaged and the disabled … Public service should be lauded, not derided
So I am quite frankly dumbfounded and outraged that the member for North Sydney can so casually front the media and talk about axing entire government departments at a cost of 12,000 public servant jobs, many of them in Canberra. What is so chilling is that he does it with such carelessness and disdain, particularly given the coalition's crocodile tears about the loss of 1,000 steelworker jobs and their pretending to be the friends of the Australian worker—as if they care about Australian workers and as if Work Choices had been forgotten by Australian workers. If those opposite are so concerned about job losses, why are they so loud and so enthusiastic about cutting 12,000 jobs from my community? Is it blatant and tiresome Canberra bashing, or is it in the vain hope that no-one will notice the fact that the member for North Sydney, the man who claims to be the alternative Treasurer of this country, cannot understand the budget?
He claims the Public Service has grown by 20,000 positions, but if he understood the budget papers he would realise it has grown by less than half that number and it is the same size it was 20 years ago. Similarly, he hopes no-one notices that his unfunded election black hole has blown out from $11 billion to $70 billion, which is just a minor miscalculation. To put that in perspective, that black hole represents stopping Medicare payments for four years or stopping the age pension for two years. This just goes to show that those opposite cannot read a budget, cannot add up, cannot articulate a policy and clearly cannot lead this country. And this lack of leadership, this lack of understanding, will come at the expense of my community and the communities of Queanbeyan, Cooma, Yass and the south coast of New South Wales.
We need to remember that the coalition have never been a friend of Canberra or the capital region. They have never really been concerned about us. They have form, they have a track record, and we only need to go back to 1996 to be reminded of the potential vision they have for our future. Under the Howard government, 12,000 Public Service jobs were axed in Canberra and 30,000 nationally. The cuts sent Canberra into recession when the rest of Australia was growing. And jobs were not lost just in the public sector; small businesses went under all over the capital region. House prices fell by 30 per cent. Every second house at the south coast was up for sale. The population of Canberra dropped substantially. I know firsthand the effects of a coalition government because I was one of the 12,000 that was axed. How do those opposite imagine that government programs will happen? Through the sheer will of the Leader of the Opposition? Or will the invisible fairies write all that policy, deliver all those services and advance this nation's interests here and overseas?
The experience of 1996 is not so easily forgotten in this town. It is deeply etched in our psyche. And I will make sure this House, the people who serve this House, the people of Canberra and the people of the capital region will never forget. That is why I urge the member for North Sydney to take up the offer by the ACT Chief Minister to meet the Canberrans he plans to put out of work, particularly the business community. I am also happy to organise some of those meetings, because then he may understand that like any community the people of Canberra are decent, honest, hardworking people who, like Australians everywhere, have mortgages, have dreams, have aspirations for their families. Then he may reflect on the fact that a job in the Public Service is just as important as a job in the steel industry. Then he may just see firsthand the direct and indirect impact of his reckless, glib and disgraceful comments.
Moncrieff Electorate: Police Resources
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (16:40): I rise this afternoon to speak about an issue that is very important to my constituents—that is, the level of lawlessness on the Gold Coast. The reality is that the Gold Coast has struggled significantly. We have gone from being Australia's tourism capital to, unfortunately, being dubbed Australia's crime capital. The reason for this effectively comes down to one thing only—that is, the state Labor government's unwillingness to provide the police resources that the Gold Coast needs.
The Gold Coast has been Australia's fastest growing city for decades. Its population is around 500,000 people. However, the Queensland Labor government continues to acknowledge that in a city the size of the Gold Coast we unfortunately do not have adequate police resources. In 2001, in my first federal election campaign, one of the platforms I fought for was more police. It is difficult for me as a federal member of parliament to deliver more police, but the call was clear from the community that our city needed more.
Following that election, together with the efforts of my state Liberal colleagues, I was successful in securing 86 additional police at the time. Since then, the numbers of police on the Gold Coast has flatlined. Since then, the number of crimes has increased. Although there have been examples that the rate for certain crimes on the Gold Coast has fallen, the overall level of lawlessness has increased. There is a very, very large gap between the level of crime in the Gold Coast community and the level of crime in the next policing district within Queensland.
The fundamental issue, in addition to the fact that there are enough police, is that on any given night there are approximately 70,000 tourists holidaying on the Gold Coast. That is the equivalent of a small town. They are not even considered when it comes to police resourcing of the Gold Coast. Not only are there too few police, but we also have that consequence multiplied by virtue of the fact that on any given night we have the equivalent of a small town holidaying on the Gold Coast, and that population is ignored when it comes to police resourcing.
Police on the Gold Coast do an outstanding job. They certainly go well and truly above and beyond their call of duty. That notwithstanding, there is an enormous amount of frustration within the police force at their lack of resourcing from the state Labor government. That is the reason many of us on the Gold Coast were so deeply cynical about the state Labor government's recent announcement that the Gold Coast would be provided with 50 additional police. You see, following the very unfortunate and tragic death of police officer Damian Leeding recently, there has been a record number of armed robberies in the city. The state Labor government, in an acknowledgement or a 'fob of the hat' that there was a law and order problem on the Gold Coast, announced with much fanfare the allocation of 50 additional police for the city. The catch was that the 50 extra police were for one month. For one month the Gold Coast was supplied with 50 additional police and I, like many in the community, thought it indicated the arrogance and the lack of commitment from the state Labor government to provide the police that we need.
So far Operation Seymour, as it is dubbed, with the allocation of an additional 50 uniformed officers to the Gold Coast, has seen 1,974 people being charged with some 2,880 offences. The question is: what happens when the operation ends in coming days? Will the crims come back from holidays? I suspect so. Will we see more armed robberies, shootings and murders on the Gold Coast now that it has been dubbed Australia's crime capital? I suspect so. As a community, we are fed up with the state Labor government's inability to do something meaningful when it comes to crime on the Gold Coast. It is so bad that we actually required the local council to provide $500,000 in funding for a police helicopter trial because the state government would not step up to the plate. So now ratepayers' money is being used, instead of Queensland government taxes that we all contribute to, to try to do something about our law and order issue. People are cynical of the state Labor government because it is simply not up to the task. We deserve better. I will continue to fight for more police and will not settle until we secure the extra officers that we need.
Live Animal Exports
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:45): It is now three months since the ABC's Four Corners program exposed the brutal treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs, and we continue to see a steady trickle of disturbing evidence that points to the culpability of the live export industry in this scandal. Yesterday the government released the Chief Veterinary Officer's report into the mark I boxes—the cattle restraint devices featured on Four Corners of which 103 had been installed by MLA and LiveCorp for use in Indonesian slaughterhouses. It was these devices and the associated trauma and torture inflicted upon cattle that were a source of outrage for many Australians. The Chief Veterinary Officer has now concluded that these devices breach the base level OIE international slaughter guidelines as they cause unnecessary distress during the restraint process, among other things. Some $1 million of taxpayer funding contributed to the installation of these devices. Financial contributions from government towards these boxes were made under both parties' watch, and the community has every reason to feel outraged that this has effectively been an investment in animal cruelty in Indonesia.
Evidence out of Turkey released last week showed again the willingness of live exporters to enter new markets without first assessing the conditions Australian animals would face. We have sent 500,000 cattle and sheep to Turkey over the past 18 months to be slaughtered in facilities that would appear to routinely breach international guidelines by hoisting conscious animals by a rear leg for the throat cut.
We have also today seen pitiful images, this time apparently of Australian livestock in Israel, showing cattle crowded together, covered in filth and being beaten with spike-tipped poles, providing yet further evidence of how far this trade currently is from being humane or acceptable to the Australian community.
I am sure that many members would have received correspondence, as I have, this week expressing disappointment that there could not have been a conscience vote last Thursday with regard to the bills to end live export. This demonstrates to me the strong desire of a majority of Australians to see proper consideration and analysis given to a plan to transition out of live exports, as New Zealand has, including steps to support the significant expansion of chilled meat export markets. There is absolutely no doubt, however, that until we can take that important step, the very least the community expects of us is to ensure that there is not one standard for animals in Australia and an unacceptably lower standard for the treatment and slaughter of Australian animals overseas.
What has been made abundantly clear by evidence presented from importing markets is the importance in this respect of pre-slaughter stunning. Despite this fact, there appears to exist a belief by some that mandatory stunning is not possible in Middle Eastern markets. This ignores a clear precedent in Jordan, where stunning has gained religious acceptance and has been embraced as good for animals, safer for workers and providing a better meat quality. With encouragement from Australia, widespread stunning is more than achievable in the region. Animals Australia's work in Jordan, for example, has led to 80 per cent of animals in that country now going through facilities that stun. The other 20 per cent is just a matter of time as the final facilities are upgraded.
I recently received a letter from Her Royal Highness Princess Alia al Hussein of Jordan urging Australia to mandate stunning in importing countries. She wrote:
I would greatly encourage you, and indeed be most grateful to you, if in setting standards in legislation, you can ensure that the stunning of both sheep and cattle unconscious prior to slaughter is mandatory. The utmost minimizing of the suffering of animals both leading up to and during the slaughter process is a key requirement of Islamic teachings, hard though that may be to believe when seeing the cavalier treatment of animals, sadly, in many Islamic countries. It would greatly assist our efforts were the Australian government to mandate standards that have been scientifically proven to reduce suffering, as well as having growing religious acceptance.
Australia sends halal certified meat to every country it sends live animals to, all of which is from animals stunned as part of the slaughter process. The Princess Alia Foundation is actively encouraging the benefits of stunning to be more broadly embraced in the Middle East. Her Royal Highness went on to write:
Whilst Australia's live export trade continues, it is important for countries in my region which have yet to implement animal protection laws, to see that the Australian government places great importance on animal welfare and ensuring that animals are humanely treated throughout the process.
Here we have, clearly, an appeal from a leading Islamic figure for Australia to assist in the broader acceptance and implementation of stunning in the Middle East by making such standards mandatory. Surely there is no greater indication as to what our next step should be than this direct request from one of our major customers to set the bar higher.
If live export is to continue for the foreseeable future, the very least we can do is to properly protect the welfare of animals, and the most basic protection we can afford them is pre-slaughter stunning. Australians expect it; producers have overwhelmingly signalled they want it; religious authorities accept it. There is no reason not to do it.
Member for Lyne
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (16:50): We come to this place to represent our electorates. We come to reflect the hopes and aspirations of the people from our communities, and a member of this House occupies their seat at the pleasure of the voters in their electorate. A member who acts contrary to the wishes of their electorate will ultimately be judged at the ballot box. Today's headline in the Port Paper, 'Oakeshott support plummets', says it all. We see in today's paper a reflection of what everybody on the North Coast knows. The people of Lyne know that they have been abandoned by their local member. The people of Lyne know—and I will use their words—that they have been betrayed. The people of Lyne know that they have a representative in this House voting against their interests. They know that he is supporting an incompetent and increasingly sleazy government—a government that reflects the very worst of New South Wales Labor, which was so comprehensively tossed from office at the last state election. They know that he voted against the interests of small business in relation to administration of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. They know that he voted against the interests of young people by denying them access to proper support through youth allowance. And they know that he is going to saddle them with a massive carbon tax that goes up and up and up. What did the research released in today's newspaper show about this carbon tax? It showed very clearly that 70.4 per cent of people in the electorate of Lyne do not want a carbon tax, 24.9 per cent support it and a tiny 4.8 per cent are undecided. The people of Lyne have made up their minds; they do not want this massive new tax. So what has that done to support for the member for Lyne? Does he have the support of his electorate? According to research, the primary vote for the member for Lyne has fallen from 47 per cent at the last election to just 14.8 per cent now. Support for the coalition has risen to 55.3 per cent. Interestingly, the member for Lyne has achieved a feat that I do not think has occurred in any other seat in Australia: support for Labor in the seat of Lyne has actually risen since the last election. The member for Lyne has increased support for Labor from 13.5 per cent to 17.2 per cent.
It is of great concern that we have a member who is acting against the interests of not just his own electorate but also the North Coast, which is very dependent on small business, and small business is going to be hit very hard by a carbon tax. There is no compensation for small business under the proposed carbon tax of which the member for Lyne is one of the principal architects, and the people of the North Coast and the people of the electorate of Lyne do not like it one bit. Some residents of Lyne were quoted in a recent newspaper article, and I would like to repeat those quotes, including that of Mr David Olsen:
He said that the local construction and tourism industries would be hard hit.
'The carbon tax will have a disastrous effect on the home building industry, which is already at an all time low,' Mr Olsen said.
'Our tourism industry will suffer as it will be cheaper to go overseas instead of holidaying in Australia.'
The proprietor of the Wiggly Tail butchery said:
'By doing what he has done (supporting the Gillard Government’s carbon tax), he has totally betrayed the electorate …'
This is also of great concern to the people in my electorate, who are going to get a carbon tax by default because of the actions of the member for Lyne.
It is not too late for the member for Lyne to reflect the views of the electorate and reject this carbon tax. It is not too late for the member for Lyne to reject this government, so comprehensively despised by the people of Australia. It is not too late for the member for Lyne to attempt to regain the trust that his constituents had in him when they sent him to represent them at the last election. It is vitally important that people who represent regional areas act in the best interests of the people they represent. It is vitally important that they represent the interests of small business and pensioners and working Australians. The member for Lyne is failing to do that, he is losing the trust and confidence of his electorate and he will be judged at the next election if he continues down this path.
Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (16:55): This being a Thursday afternoon adjournment, it is of course time for me to relate another story to the House about the Building the Education Revolution program in the electorate of Deakin and another school that has benefited from great new facilities. On Monday, 25 July, during the break in parliamentary sittings, I had the honour of officially opening the new BER funded classrooms at Croydon Special Developmental School, located within my electorate of Deakin. Croydon SDS is not your normal school; being a special developmental school, it is for students aged five to 18 with a severe intellectual disability. Many students are also autistic or have a physical disability. As demand for these services has increased in the local area, the school has doubled in size over the past 10 years.
As an SDS, Croydon was eligible for funding for all of its students, from the age of five through to the age of 18, unlike a normal primary school. That was under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century component of the BER program. The school got rid of two old and difficult-to-access portable classrooms. They took them away and put in two brand-new senior classrooms with fantastic learning spaces. Because it is a special school, the classes are very small: the two classes that are in these rooms consist of boys, one with 11 students, the other with 10. As the staff at the school tell me, it is quite typical for a school of that type that most of the students are boys. Just about the entire school population is male, especially in the senior years.
The third room that was built is being used as a therapy room, and it is used by students right across the school. Croydon SDS has a team of nine therapists, including physio, occupational and speech therapists, who now can plan programs with students from across the school in an area that can accommodate all their therapy and physical needs—for example, gross motor programs such as PMP, physiotherapy for students in wheelchairs and those with high support needs, sensory programs and occupational therapy. With a 2010 enrolment figure of 117, Croydon SDS received $807,500 in total under the P21 program to build these new rooms.
On the morning of the opening ceremony, I was met by the school principal, Jo Innes, and the previous principal, Carol Shade, at the front door, along with two of the school's students, who were very excited about the occasion, Zac and Josh—and they were very proud to have the task of showing me around their school. Peter Lyall, who designed and project managed the building and who has been involved in building throughout the school for a long time, was also on hand to take me through what had been done at the school. Because of the time of year, the ceremony was held inside, which meant it could not be as big as it might have been; but, in light of the needs of the students, I thought that was a very good move. In the opening ceremony itself, however, I was upstaged by the students—
Mr Hartsuyker: How could that be!
Mr SYMON: Because they are much better at performing for a crowd like that than I am, especially the junior class who played music for us—they did a great job, dressed up in very colourful hats and other bits and pieces of clothing—and the senior class, who did a dance routine for the crowd as well. It was really appreciated. I have not seen anything quite like that at a school before, especially from students who have disabilities that make doing that sort of thing very hard. But they particularly like that sort of group activity. I feel most privileged to have witnessed that.
I have opened more than 20 BER projects, and I think this is probably the one that sticks out in my mind as the most individual and the most suited to the school—in particular, by getting rid of old portable classrooms that were suited to a general school and by having purpose-built classrooms put in place for the needs of the school's kids.
Following the ceremony, we had a morning tea where we got to sit down and talk to staff, parents and school council members. We also had a bit of a chat about the upcoming discussions on the NDIS. The Productivity Commission report had not been released at the time; it obviously now has been, and I will be going back there to continue those discussions.
The Croydon Special Developmental School also received $75,000 under the National School Pride Program for a bike path, back in 2009, and that is used daily to get the kids out and mobile on bikes, something they cannot do on the street. I think Croydon SDS is a great example of what the federal government has been able to do to assist great state schools to be even better and to provide better facilities for staff, students and parents of the school community.
Debate interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr LYONS: to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the:
(a) surf lifesavers who risked their lives to perform approximately 11 000 rescues in Australia last year; and
(b) work done by surf lifesavers in northern Australia as its surf season comes to an end;
(2) recognises the:
(a) importance of water safety in Australia as we head into the warmer months in the southern parts of Australia; and
(b) vital work of Surf Life Saving Australia and its efforts in patrolling our beaches and educating swimmers; and
(3) encourages all:
(a) Australians to learn to swim so that every Australian is a swimmer and every Australian swimmer a lifesaver;
(b) users of aquatic environments, such as pools, rivers, lakes and the surf, to understand those environments and be safe as they swim.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9:30 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Boothby Electorate: South Road
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (9:30): I would like to speak about South Road. From the entrance of the Southern Expressway to Sturt Road is only a short distance. It would only be one kilometre of the 22-kilometre stretch of South Road from Darlington to Winfield which I would like to one day see as a non-stop expressway, and yet it is one of the major bottlenecks on South Road. Every commuter from the southern suburbs would use this stretch of road, even those who do not use the Southern Expressway but come from Happy Valley, Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill travel this road. For such a small part of the road it has attracted an enormous number of commitments, promises and announcements from the state and federal governments. I have tallied at least 10 commitments and announcements from state and federal governments going back to 2006 about planned work on this stretch of road, and after 5½ years nothing has happened. The Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure has an animation of light rail running up to the front door of Flinders Medical Centre and car park 1 of Flinders University. It looks great, but is totally unfunded and will not be delivered by the South Australian government.
The latest broken promise from the South Australian government involves switching a promised $75 million interchange with a pre-existing traffic light. What was to be a fully funded infrastructure development has now been cancelled. The excuses which have been offered by the state government and by their minister, Pat Conlan, are laughable. They hope for federal funding. Apparently it is due to the GFC, the floods in Queensland or the dog ate it, but here briefly are some facts. Firstly, the federal government has provided $500 million to the SA government for South Road, including this stretch of South Road. That money has been spent elsewhere. That was the state government's decision—it was Pat Conlan's decision—and they knew this when they promised this interchange 18 months ago.
Secondly, what the state government also would have known is that federal money comes in five-year cycles. The next major funding cycle will not arrive until after the 2014 state election, and Pat Conlan and the state government knew this 18 months ago as well.
Thirdly, what they said at the time was that the interchange between South Road and the Southern Expressway is fully funded by them and does not rely on Commonwealth funding. Pat Conlan and the state government are damned by their own words, and he has been caught out. After nine years of cynical spin the public now cannot believe any of their promises.
Petition: Live Animal Exports
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (9:33): by leave—I want to draw to the attention of the House a petition which has been given to me by Solomi Argiropolos of Springvale in Victoria. She has collected some 815 signatures. I think I need leave to present it as a document because the petitions committee has not certified it in accordance with the standing orders.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I thank the honourable member for Wright. The document will be received as a tabled document. This document will now be referred to the Standing Committee on Petitions for consideration.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON: I thank the member for Wright. The petition which Miss Argiropolos has organised seeks a permanent end to the live export of all animals. The petitioners have expressed the view that there is no such thing as humane live export of animals, that animals suffer intolerably in very long distance voyages to Indonesia and the Middle East on ships where there are few workers to look after up to 100,000 animals, that there is terrible overcrowding, that thousands of sheep on each ship can starve because they have never before eaten dry pellets which they cannot recognise as being food after a lifetime of grazing on grass, that sick and injured animals are rarely spotted in densely overcrowded pens and that their bodies are only discovered at the end of the journey. The petitioners observed that 80 per cent of Australian abattoirs are already halal certified and Middle Eastern supermarkets are already selling these Australian chilled meats, making live exports no longer necessary. She expresses concern that animals arrive in countries which have no animal welfare laws and are subjected to indescribable horrors there. The petitioners demand an immediate and permanent end of live trade to Indonesia and demand the confirmation of an end date for all live animal export.
Miss Argiropolos has gone to some trouble to provide further information about this issue to me regarding the value of processing meat in Australia and supporting Australia’s meat processing industry rather than engaging in the live export trade. She further suggests that Australia should follow the precedent set by New Zealand when it introduced stringent guidelines back in 2004 which have ended the live export trade there, but of course New Zealand has a very lucrative domestic meat processing trade. (Time expired)
Convoy of No Confidence
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (9:36): Yesterday in the parliament we witnessed some extraordinary scenes when the Prime Minister and her cabinet walked out of the chamber at the very beginning of question time. It is unfathomable, given that from the Prime Minister’s comments earlier on about the new paradigm of the parliament to let the sun shine in and a more transparent process. Over the last couple of weeks people travelled from all around Australia in convoys to merge at Canberra to have their voices heard. They came to Canberra because they were angry. They came to Canberra because they believed that they had been lied to and they believed that the government was no longer listening to what they had to say. They wanted to voice their frustration, their anger and their opinion of feeling abandoned by this government. They came from all around the country, including my electorate of Wright, at considerable personal expense to voice frustration. These people are not political activists. These people are not the people that you would see in a union rally. They were not paid to do this. They are not contracted to attend marches or rallies. These people got out of their normal routine and made the trip down here because they wanted to make a statement to let the government know that they were furious. Many of them had never been to Canberra before. Most of them certainly had never been to a protest before, but they felt strongly enough about this government’s performance that they wanted to come and have their voices heard.
I have three stories from my electorate. One bloke who came down could not afford to put new tyres on his trucks to get here. That is how tough his business is doing, but he put tyres on his credit card so he could make the journey. Another couple that were frustrated with the government’s performance were a dairy farmer and his wife who paid some people to go in and do their milking for them so that they could come down here, again, frustrated with the trajectory of where this nation was heading. Another bloke, a larger transport operator, was concerned with the increasing regulatory and cost inhibitors of his business, in particular registration fees—and I acknowledge that is a state matter.
How did the government react? It ignored them. In fact, not only did it ignore them; it ridiculed them. The Prime Minister and the ministers refused to meet with these people and openly insulted them. Of course they are angry and hostile. They feel betrayed because we have a Prime Minister who first said, ‘I will no more challenge for the leadership than be a full forward for the Dogs’, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’ and, the clanger of all clangers, ‘Nine out of 10 families will be better off under a carbon tax.’ (Time expired)
Apple Imports
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) (9:39): As many people would know, the apple industry is an historic and integral part of Tasmanian industry, particularly in my electorate of Franklin. Tasmania has historically been known as the Apple Isle. Indeed, I have a significant number of apple growers in the south of my electorate, as I said, in the Huon Valley.
In the last week we have obviously seen a decision from the government that we will accept New Zealand apples exported to Australia. I put on record my support for the apple industry in my electorate. I assure the apple growers in my electorate, as I have done publicly in my electorate last week, that we have done everything we can but that we lost the World Trade Organisation appeal; we lost it on the science. We now have to accept that science, which tells us that the risk is minimal. We have introduced significant biosecurity measures over several months of consultation with the industry to ensure that we protect our industry in Australia.
What we cannot afford to do is risk retaliatory action. I know that Tasmania exports $127 million of product to New Zealand every year. We export $39 million of chocolate. We export zinc, paper and newsprint products; just to name a few. We certainly need to protect those industries in our state, and at the same time protect our apple growers.
The other thing that I want to reassure the industry in Tasmania of is that New Zealand exporters have said that at the moment they expect to export only to untapped mainland markets and certainly they will only come to Tasmania if there is a market there for them. I have already sought assurances from Coles and Woolworths. They have said that they cannot see in the foreseeable future that they will be stocking New Zealand apples. They intend to continue to stock Australian product, and certainly I will be supporting campaigns in Tasmania to continue to support the Tasmanian product. As I said earlier, we grow quite a number of apples—significantly the Pink Lady, the Fuji and the Golden Delicious. They are very well liked apples, stocked by our supermarkets and little independent stores in Tasmania. People are indicating to me that we have a great product and that everybody wants to continue to support our product.
As a government, we have looked at the science before us. We have lost our WTO appeal and we are making the only decision we can to protect our other industries, but also to protect our other farmers in Tasmania, the other horticulture and agriculture, from retaliatory action. We are doing what is in the best interests of our community, of the Huon Valley in my local electorate, because we need to ensure that we do not face that retaliatory action. My understanding is that there could be up to 100 per cent tariffs on Tasmanian products into New Zealand, so we need to do all that we can to protect our farmers from both ends. (Time expired)
National Seniors Week
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (9:42): This week, all around Australia, seniors are out and about making a contribution to their communities, creating networks to support others, combating social isolation, fundraising for important causes, caring for each other and their families, and many other altruistic activities. It is no different to any other week. However, this week in August we are celebrating National Seniors Week. National Seniors Week gives us an opportunity to acknowledge not only the contribution of seniors but also to consider the challenges they face.
Policies that affect seniors are broad and varied within the federal sphere. They are a group that is particularly affected by most federal government policies and decisions. Whilst there are obvious areas like aged care and the pension, seniors are also affected by health policies, industrial relations, carers, disabilities, veterans affairs, and of course, the cost of living. Policies affect seniors in ways they do not affect other groups in our society. There are many pitfalls within policies that directly target seniors of which many are not aware. Take, for instance, the superannuation guarantee age limit. Superannuation is in place to help people save for their retirement, yet currently the superannuation guarantee applies only to workers up until the age of 70. This means that if you continue working past the age of 70 your employer is no longer required to pay you superannuation. I believe that this current age limit unfairly discriminates against older workers and may cause them to question their continuing employment. The coalition has also recognised this and took a policy of abolishing this age limit to the last election.
It would be remiss of me not to comment on how the carbon tax will affect seniors. Self-funded retirees who do not hold a Commonwealth seniors card will not receive any of the government’s proposed compensation. That equates to 285,000 Australians who have saved to fund themselves in retirement and do not rely on the taxpayer who will now be significantly worse off. This is on top of the government already halving the maximum limit on concessional superannuation contributions, again providing a disincentive for seniors to actively work towards supporting themselves.
Additionally, working seniors earning a salary of about $70,000 will face an increase in their marginal tax rate of an extra 2.5c in the dollar as of 1 July next year and those earning just $25,000 a year, currently taxed at 15c in the dollar, will see this rise to 19c of every dollar. So for both these groups the incentive to earn extra income is again diminished. A single self-funded retiree who earns more than $50,000 immediately starts to be worse off under the carbon tax and a couple on $80,000 or more will receive no compensation at all.
I regularly receive feedback from my constituents that it is very difficult to access the information they need on issues such as those I have discussed. That is why I am pleased to be hosting the inaugural Ryan Seniors Forum next week to assist seniors in my electorate who are seeking information about issues affecting their lives.
Our seniors should be celebrated, not only in this special week, but every week, yet some of the Gillard government policies do not acknowledge the valuable contribution our seniors continue to make.
Macedonia
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (9:45): On Thursday, 18 August 2011 the Australian Macedonia Parliamentary Friendship Group hosted His Excellency Mr Pero Stojanovski, Ambassador of the Republic of Macedonia, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Macedonian independence. I could not attend the event, but I was represented by Andrew Hunter from my office.
The date of this event fell roughly between two significant dates in modern Macedonian history. I understand that 2 August is St Eligius Day, celebrated in Macedonia to recognise the anniversary of the beginning of the Ilinden uprising. This uprising against the centuries long Ottoman occupation occurred in 1903 and was a key event in the development of Macedonia. The Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 led to the dissolution of the Ottoman empire. This period coincided with the first wave of Macedonian migration to Australia, almost entirely from the Aegean Macedonia.
The country officially celebrates independence day on 8 September because on that day in 1991 a peaceful democratic referendum endorsed the country’s independence from Yugoslavia. Last week His Excellency, Mr Pero Stojanovski, spoke of what had been achieved in the first 20 years of independence and of the challenges still to be met.
According to the 2006 census, over 80,000 Australian residents identified themselves as having Macedonian ancestry. The South Australian Macedonian community was established by migrants from the Aegean region of Macedonia in the 1920s and 1930s. The majority settled in the inner western suburbs of Adelaide, but many later moved to Adelaide’s northern suburbs. A subsequent wave of Macedonians came in the 1960s and 1970s.
Australians of Macedonian ancestry have made a considerable contribution to all walks of Australian life—in the professions, in business, the arts and sports, where most notably Australian Rules footballer and 1990 Collingwood premiership player Peter Daicos is still referred as the Macedonian Marvel.
In South Australia there are a number of organisations and groups that identify with the members of the Macedonian community. The Macedonian community of Adelaide and South Australia was established in 1947. This community group is the home to the Macedonian United Lions Soccer Club and the Macedonian School of South Australia. It also publishes the quarterly journal Iskra.
The annual Macedonian cultural day festival, which was first held in 1983, was a successful part of South Australia’s 150-year anniversary in 1986. In 1969 the first Macedonian Orthodox Church in South Australia was built adjacent to the Macedonian Hall in Findon. Another church, Holy Mother of God in Woodville South, was established during the late 1990s.
A range of Macedonian radio programs exist in Adelaide. In more recent years the Macedonian Social Club was established in Brahma Lodge to cater for Macedonians living in Adelaide’s northern suburbs.
I grew up with many people of Macedonian descent as neighbours and friends and to this day the Unerkov family are neighbours of mine. I congratulate the Republic of Macedonia on its 20th anniversary of independence and acknowledge their contributions to Australian society.
Bradfield Electorate: Schools
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (9:48): I am pleased to rise to take this opportunity in the national parliament to congratulate the cast, the crew, the orchestras and all involved with two fine school musical productions that I have been lucky enough to attend recently in my electorate of Bradfield. The first was a production of Annie, a joint production of Hornsby Girls High School and Normanhurst Boys High School, and the second was the St Ives High production How to succeed in business without really trying.
The plots of both of these musicals, for those who have not seen them, contain moments of interesting relevance to politicians. Annie is set in the depression and features Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a character. How to succeed in business without really trying could be described as a series of case studies of successful tactics in office politics, but those tactics may have some broader relevance. Be that as it may, I want to warmly congratulate all who were involved in these two fine productions. I thoroughly enjoyed attending them and the standard of the singing, acting, music and all aspects of the technical production was excellent.
I particularly congratulate the principals of the schools involved, Mr Robert Phillips of Hornsby Girls High School, Mr Mark Watson of St Ives High School and Mr Jeff Bruce of Normanhurst Boys High School. I also want to congratulate the producers of the two productions, Mrs Nicole Johnson for Annie and Mrs Pam Bullock for How to succeed in business without really trying.
In my view, the staff of these three schools are to be very warmly congratulated for giving their students the opportunity to participate in these two productions. I believe that they have given these students a very important message about complementing their academic work with interests in other areas. By exposing their students to the witty and sophisticated lyrics and the infectious music of a top-notch Broadway musical, they have demonstrated how high intelligence, combined with hard work, can produce all kinds of output which is of human and social value.
There is no doubt that legal opinions, medical diagnoses or financing proposals will loom large in the career plans of many students of these three schools, but these two musical productions are a powerful demonstration to all students of these schools that there are many other forms of human endeavour which are of equal importance.
I therefore want to warmly congratulate all who were involved and say that I thoroughly enjoyed attending both productions. Everybody involved with them—cast, crew, staff and supporters—can take great pride in what they have achieved.
Kingston Electorate: Southern Expressway
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (09:51): I rise today to confirm that I am very pleased that the state government of South Australia has confirmed this week its commitment to duplicating the Southern Expressway in my electorate of Kingston.
For those people who do not know, the Southern Expressway is an expressway on which traffic goes one way and then it changes in the middle of the night and goes the other way, obviously creating a lot of frustration for commuters that are trying to get to and from the southern suburbs. It was a mistake made by the previous Liberal state government that did not have the foresight, even if they could not afford to build the whole road, to plan ahead to ensure that there was space next to the existing expressway to duplicate it. It has been left to the South Australian government to duplicate it. I am very pleased that they committed to this in the state election campaign, and they have confirmed it this week.
However, there is some concern within the community over a number of specific design aspects, which I want to highlight to the House and which I hope that the state Labor government will pay considerable attention to. The first is the entry and exit point at Panalatinga Road. Currently residents have expressed their desire to include at this intersection an additional entry and exit ramp to accommodate those wishing to enter the Southern Expressway at this intersection to travel south and also for those wishing to travel north and exit at this intersection further down the southern suburbs. This is critically important because this is about connecting up the communities of the southern suburbs, making sure that they have access, that it will attract investment in jobs and a whole range of things. Ensuring that there is good ability to commute and to get across is really important. Many petitions that I have sent out have returned to my office saying that this is really important. I certainly urge the government seriously consider this and to plan for it so as not to make the mistakes of the past—that is, of not planning for this important addition to the Southern Expressway.
There has been some talk this week about the Darlington interchange. We know with the Southern Expressway that we need to make sure there is flow of traffic. There is no point in having the Southern Expressway flow only to then become congested at the end. It is important that the design at Darlington and the Darlington interchange is one that allows for free traffic movement to ensure that commuters from the southern suburbs can actually continue on their journey and not experience any congestion. I hope that once again the state government will consider this design very carefully. (Time expired)
Petition: Occasional Childcare Services Program
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (09:54): I rise to present a petition which was found to be in order by the House of Representatives Petitions Committee. There are more than 1,000 signatures on this petition, which deals with community concerns with the federal government’s decision to withdraw funding from the Occasional Childcare Services Program, more commonly known throughout Victoria as Take a Break.
The Take a Break program is critically important to mums and dads and their children in my electorate. Under this government’s decision to take $12.6 million away from the Take a Break program, we are left with many towns such as Swifts Creek, Paynesville, Gormandale, Cann River, Heyfield, towns which are quite small, that face the prospect of having no occasional childcare service whatsoever after December this year. I have spoken before on this issue and raised my concerns, but if the government is not prepared to listen to me perhaps they will listen to these 1,000 Gippslanders who are basically saying they want a fair go. It should not be so hard for regional communities to get a fair go out of this government. I hope someone is actually listening.
The concerns have been raised by the Victorian Neighbourhood House Association’s Angela Savage, who is the executive officer. Ms Savage has written to me and other members explaining the potential risks if this funding is not restored by the Gillard government. The risk is that at least 142 childcare workers stand to lose their jobs and over 220 community organisations which received government funding in the past would not be able to offer occasional childcare services in the future.
I acknowledge from the outset that this program has been funded previously with a mix of state and federal government funding. The federal government used to provide 70 per cent of the funding and the state government 30 per cent of the funding. In Victoria we are seeing Victorian state MPs taking the opportunity to harangue their Victorian coalition government and demand that they provide the services in the future. The Victorian government has been prepared to stump up their 30 per cent of funding. What they are demanding though is that the federal government restore the 70 per cent that they used to provide.
It stuns me, quite frankly, to have a government which is prepared to spend more than $12 million on climate change advertising propaganda but cannot find $12 million to help the children in regional communities receive some occasional childcare and to also provide support for their parents who often require a bit of respite or also require the opportunity to undertake some part-time work. It is a staggering decision from the government. It just shows how out of touch some of the Labor members in this place are. They are prepared to spend $12 million on propaganda but not $12 million on occasional childcare services. I think it is hypocritical of state Labor MPs to be haranguing the state government in Victoria and then not also coming to the Commonwealth minister and demanding that she reinstate that funding.
In presenting this petition I just hope that finally someone in government is actually listening to the people of Australia. It should not be this hard for the people of regional communities like those in Gippsland to get a fair go from this government.
The petition read as follows—
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the withdrawal of funding for occasional childcare services by the Gillard Government in the 2010/11 Federal Budget.
Of particular concern to the undersigned are the potential impacts on remote communities where 'Take a Break' childcare services available through Neighbourhood Houses and community centres may cease as a result of this decision.
In many rural and regional communities childcare services operated through Neighbourhood Houses are the only childcare option available and play a vital role in supporting volunteering, workforce and social participation.
We therefore ask the House to support a reinstatement of occasional childcare funding by the Federal Government to enable rural and regional communities to access quality childcare services.
from 1121 citizens
Petition received.
Holt Electorate: Vietnam Veterans
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:57): I rise today to pay tribute and acknowledge my friend and proud Vietnam veteran, Denny van Maanenberg. One of the Vietnam veterans who had previously been involved in the Cranbourne RSL in my electorate of Holt, he is also a member of the Vietnam Veterans Motor Cycle Club, Gippsland Chapter.
Vietnam Veterans Remembrance Day took place last week and therefore, my knowing Denny, it was a good time for me to talk about him, to share some of his story and give an account of his life as a Vietnam veteran: one story, one thread, one account of a life’s journey from one of the almost 60,000 people who served our country in Vietnam.
But something really troubles me in hearing the stories from our returning Vietnam veterans—the recurring stories. That is their treatment from some elements of the Australian community upon their return after service, treatment which profoundly wounded them, scarred them and affected their return back to their loves ones and their community.
Denny was a private who served 22 years in the armed forces—10 years in the Regular Army and 12 in the Army Reserves. He ended his services as a temporary captain. Denny’s apprehension about his return to Australia commenced just prior to his return from Vietnam in April 1970. Denny recalled being in a war zone in a foreign land and expecting Australians to be supportive of our troops and his brothers-in-arms, as he would say, who were serving alongside him. Understandably, he says it cut a lot of blokes fairly deeply hearing the news of protests and demonstrations, particularly those that disrupted their supplies and mail from loved ones at home.
Upon returning from 12 months service at age 21—in other words, a full tour of duty in Vietnam—Denny, like many other returning soldiers, was flown back on a midnight flight to Sydney to avoid confrontation from an expected crowd of protestors at the airport. When the returning soldiers were directed through Customs he saw that his family had flown up to greet him, including his father who was a World War II veteran and his brother who was in the Navy. However, this joyous homecoming and the presence of his family was short-lived as it was not long before rotten tomatoes and cabbages were thrown his way from a dozen or so demonstrators who also carried placards. Some homecoming! This shameful, this disgusting treatment of those who were laying their lives on the line for our country cut very deeply for Denny and many other veterans. They still recall this disgraceful treatment to this day.
From 1970 until the late 1980s they felt that their contribution to this country’s military history had not been recognised. Of course now they believe that it has been recognised. But can I say this as someone who knows Denny and his enormous contribution to our community, particularly post his service in his role with the Casey Regional Welfare Association: on behalf of our community I apologise for those people who interfered with your recovery and did not adequately represent the true feelings of our country. I hope this goes some way in helping to heal the wounds that you have experienced in service and laying your life on the line for our country. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (10:01): I rise to speak on the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011. The bill amends the existing act to increase the cap on the national residue survey component of the deer slaughter levy from 4c to 10.5c. It is not proposed that 10.5c be levied at this stage. Governments, as we did and as this government is doing, always increase the amount by more than the requirement to save coming back to parliament every Pancake Day when more is needed. In this case, this whole thing is happening because the deer industry in Australia needs certain money to do MRL testing levels so that our clients overseas are comfortable with whatever is in the deer meat they are importing from Australia. This has to be paid for by the industry.
The industry is probably less than half what it was 20 years ago in terms of numbers, so there are fewer people paying it; they need the money to actually do the MRL testing. The Deer Industry Association of Australia has support from its members and we have the bipartisan support of the parliament to do what the industry is asking. I should mention here that 85 per cent of the product of the industry is exported to Europe and other places.
Deer farming has a 100-year long history in Australia. It is primarily located in regional areas across most states. It is based primarily on temperate deer species: 50 per cent fallow, which is the production base; red deer and elk, 40 per cent; and the remaining 10 per cent is made up of more tropical species, particularly rusa and chital deer.
There are over 500 producers involved in the deer industry. To be quite honest, I am a little surprised that the number is actually that high at this time. It is in one of its cycles, and at this present time it is not the biggest cycle it has been in. The bulk of the industry is concentrated in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, and some of the more tropical species are in Queensland and WA. The industry had a peak production of 30 tonnes with a value of almost $2.5 million. Fifty-five per cent of the production value comes from venison and venison products. The remaining 45 per cent is velvet and antler products.
The deer population in our country nine years ago was estimated at 200,000. However, with the long drought the numbers of the national herd and the fluctuations of the industry, that was probably less than 100,000 four years ago. The proposed changes occur at a time when the deer industry has suffered a significant decline in production, so they need the same money out of 100,000 that they got from 200,000. The deer monitoring program is critical for maintaining access to international markets, as I said earlier, particularly to the EU, where it is a very traditional meat. Industry requested these changes to ensure residue testing can be continued at a level to provide continued access to these markets.
In conclusion, the coalition supports the increase in the levy to 10.5c. Only 6c is what the industry proposes to have the government levy at this time.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:06): I am pleased to rise to voice my support for the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011 and I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I had to work very hard to get to the top of the speaking list for this topic, but thankfully I was able to push my way through the other members of the Labor Party and I am proud to be able to speak on it. I thank the member for Calare for his contribution.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my understanding that you used to have a deer farm, so you would be very, very interested in this topic. I see the member for Wentworth in the chamber and I understand that he has a very ‘dear’ farm, so he might be interested as well.
This bill will help ensure the viability and sustainability of the Australian deer industry. Deer were introduced into Australia more than 100 years ago. Today the deer industry is well established for breeding deer species for the production of velvet antler and, more importantly and more significantly I guess in terms of value, venison. The species that are farmed in Australia include about 50 per cent fallow, 40 per cent red deer and 10 per cent elk. Some of the tropical species are rusa and chital deer in Queensland and Western Australia. They are the deer more suited to tropical climates. And of course there is also the brief, migratory, annual visit of Santa Claus’s reindeer—at least that is what I am informed by my young children.
Back in 2002 there were 200,000 deer on Australian farms, particularly in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania. But as I said, there are also some more tropical deer harvested in Queensland and Western Australia. The onset of drought halved the deer population and the farm gate value of venison dropped from $2.47 million to $1.24 million. Obviously this is a big hit to the producers and this bill is a response to some of their concerns.
More than 85 per cent of the venison produced in Australia is exported to Europe and South-East Asia. The deer industry pays a number of compulsory levies to support the industry. These levies include a deer export charge of $5 per animal, a deer velvet levy of two per cent of sale value and a deer velvet export levy of two per cent of sale value. Deer producers are also required to pay a compulsory slaughter levy of 8c per kilogram. Unfortunately the decline in deer production over the last 10 years has significantly reduced the amount of money raised through deer levies. The levy is defined in the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998. ‘Residue’ refers to the monitoring of the residue level of chemicals in the venison.
This bill will not increase the levy but it does change the way the levy is allocated. Presently 4c per kilogram goes to fund activities undertaken by the National Residue Survey and 4c per kilogram goes to research and development and is paid to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. This bill will increase the levy cap from 4c to 10.5c per kilogram. This will enable the portion of the levy that goes to the national residue survey to be increased to 6c per kilogram and the R&D component will be reduced to 2c per kilogram. As the member for Calare touched on, this is a normal rejigging to accommodate the concerns of the industry.
Residue monitoring is obviously important to ensure that consumer confidence in the meat product safety and quality remains and is also required for Australia’s meat to be sold to the European Union. Because Europe is such a significant market for Australian deer meat it is important that we have a viable residue monitoring program, and this bill will help to achieve that. Obviously our venison sales story is part of our clean and green foodstuffs message that I am sure the member for Eden-Monaro is very familiar with. The Australian products have a good brand overseas but we can only maintain that brand through vigilance.
Importantly, the reduction in the research and development rate of the deer slaughter levy is not expected to have an impact on deer related projects undertaken by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. I think it is also important that this bill does not impose an additional tax burden on the deer producers, who have suffered significant losses over the last decade. However, because this bill will increase the levy cap to 10.5c it will enable the industry to seek future levy increases without the need to further amend the act.
I speak here as a Queenslander, Mr Deputy Speaker, like you. Obviously, with your history as a deer farmer you would understand this industry more, and I thought with your long history in the House you might be able to shed some light on why the Queensland coat of arms—the oldest coat of arms in Australia—has a deer on it. The brolga is on one side; obviously that is a very Australian bird, probably for me one of the most graceful birds in the world. That sits there easily but on the other side of the coat of arms—the coat of arms that was granted in 1893 by Queen Victoria—is the red deer. I did a bit of research. Also on the coat of arms are a sheaf of wheat, the head of a bull, the head of a ram, a bit of sugar cane—reflecting the rural activities of Queensland—and even some gold.
Dr Mike Kelly: No Wally Lewis?
Mr PERRETT: No. He was not around in 1893, which is almost how long you have to go back for New South Wales to have won the State of Origin.
An honourable member: Not quite.
Mr PERRETT: Obviously they were the rural industries of the time—but no coal, interestingly enough. Underneath the coat of arms it has the state motto, Audax et Fidelis, which means bold but faithful. That could be my motto, I suppose, or yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps. The coat of arms was changed in 1977, when the red deer and the brolga were put on the side—the supporters of the coat of arms—and apparently the thinking of that well-known Queenslander, or New Zealander, Joh Bjelke-Petersen was that the red deer was the link back to the royal herds near London, and the brolga is obviously Queensland’s distinctive bird. While we do not have as many deer producers as the other states, we do have a deer on our coat of arms, so I welcome the measures in this bill that will ensure a viable, quality deer industry continues and I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his interesting if quirky contribution.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (10:13): I thank the honourable members for their contribution to this debate, and particularly the interesting contribution from the member for Moreton. Obviously Queensland is a state we hold dear and our thoughts will be turning to them this Saturday night as the Wallabies face the All Blacks at Suncorp stadium.
The National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011 has been sought, as has been pointed out by the shadow minister, by the deer industry itself. It amends the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 to increase the maximum allowable levy rate cap on the national residue survey component of the deer slaughter levy from 4c to 10.5c per kilogram of carcass weight. The proposed change provides for changes to the relevant regulation so that the deer slaughter levy can be reapportioned. The research and development component of the levy will be decreased from 4c to 2c per kilogram and the NRS component of the levy will be increased from 4c to 6c per kilogram.
Increasing the NRS rate to 6c per kilogram will support a viable residue monitoring program that underpins access to key export markets for the deer industry. As was pointed out by the shadow minister, it is very important that this is the underpinning for the industry because 85 per cent of their product is for export. Therefore this ensures and enables them to maintain that access to the key export markets for the deer industry. So, the increasing of the NRS rate to 6c per kilogram will support that viable residue monitoring program. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation does not expect the decrease in the R&D rate to have an impact on future deer-related projects. I know this is also of great interest to deer producers in my own region. There have been ups and downs in that industry in Eden-Monaro over recent years but we still have relevant activities, so it is principally New South Wales and Victoria that are affected, notwithstanding the comments by the member for Moreton.
Also, I would like to reflect on the comments of the member for Moreton of the importance of trust in our product labels and in our products. Increasingly so, as I have been involved in this portfolio of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I have noticed the growing consumer dynamic in the entire world in relation to eco-labelling, health, trust and reliability in products, so this is a very important measure to underpin that level of trust in our product. I thank the honourable members for their contribution and commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
ABC Helicopter Crash
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (10:17): All members of this House and all Australians were horrified and deeply saddened to hear of the tragic helicopter accident which took the lives of three of the ABC’s most well-loved and most experienced employees—Gary Ticehurst, Paul Lockyer and John Bean. They died doing what they had done well for so long; bringing the vision of Australia—particularly the Australia that is beyond the cities where most of us live—those images and that life of the Australian bush to the rest of this nation. In doing that work over so many years they were part of the great mission of the ABC, which as a national public broadcaster is able to knit together this country and, in particular in the way it serves regional Australia and represents the views of regional Australia and the images of regional Australia, serves to remind all of us that there is a world elsewhere, that there is an Australia outside of the congestion and the busyness and the hustle and bustle of the city streets. While we may not be like the clerk in Banjo Paterson’s famous poem and wish that we were out of the city and out there with Clancy droving, nonetheless we can at least have some insight into that world courtesy of the ABC.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:19 to 10:32
Mr TURNBULL: Before we adjourned to vote in the division I was observing that the three men who died in this tragic helicopter crash, Gary Ticehurst, Paul Lockyer and John Bean, had spent much of their lives—particularly Paul and Gary—in recording and documenting the life in rural Australia. I speculated as to whether, like the author of Clancy of the Overflow, Banjo Paterson, we, looking at the wonderful pictures they brought back of life outside the cities, whether we, like Banjo Paterson, fancied ourselves leaving the busyness of the city and going out for a more rural life, going out into the wide open spaces of Australia. As we were coming back from the division the member for Forrest reminded me of his extraordinary gift for reading and remembering poetry and so we turned up that poem, Clancy of the Overflow, which I have not memorised, but those last two stanzas really sum up the image of an urban country like Australia that for all of its life—and we have been one of the most urbanised countries in the world, despite our vast land mass—how, as a very urbanised country, we still seek to stay connected with and to understand regional Australia. Those last two stanzas Paterson writes:
And the hurrying people daunt me, and their pallid faces haunt me
As they shoulder one another in their rush and nervous haste,
With their eager eyes and greedy, and their stunted forms and weedy,
For townsfolk have no time to grow, they have no time to waste.
And I somehow fancy that I’d like to change with Clancy,
Like to take a turn at droving where the seasons come and go,
While we faced the round eternal of the cashbook and the journal –
But I doubt he’d suit the office, Clancy, of ‘The Overflow’.
Gary Ticehurst, Paul Lockyer and John Bean did not suit the office and they died as they had lived. Gary Ticehurst had been the ABC’s lead helicopter pilot since the 1980s. He had logged more than 16,000 hours of flying time, most of those in his work for the ABC. He is remembered for many great stories that he enabled the ABC to cover, but probably the most spectacular was his consistent coverage of the Sydney to Hobart yacht races. Of course in 1998, in that tragic race, he played a very important role—much more important than just delivering us spectacular imagines of the yachts at sea—where he effected the rescue of 14 crew members of the yacht Business Post Naiad, which tragically lost its skipper and one of its crew. He was out there in that wild weather spotting the yachts and relaying their position to the search and rescue officials. He saved lives. He did not simply record the life of the sailors, he saved lives. He was loved by all of the people that he worked with at the ABC and, as I said, he represented the wings that enabled the writers and the cameramen to get out and record the life beyond the cities of this great country.
Paul Lockyer was one of the most distinguished journalists in the ABC and, indeed, in Australia. His career had spanned more than 40 years, which is remarkable because he looked so young. He was extremely well preserved. Clearly the life of being an ABC journalist is very good for one’s personal appearance. He always looked youthful and brought a vitality and an energy to all of his reporting. His jobs at the ABC have spanned just about every corner of its activities, but most recently his focus had been, as I said earlier, on regional issues. Very recently he was in Grantham when the floods hit in Queensland this year, as my colleague, Mr Buchholz has spoken very eloquently about. He was regarded as one of the people, one of their own, by the people of the Lockyer Valley—and appropriately, given they share a name—and the Mayor has said that every time he returned to Grantham, which he did many times after the floods, the locals embraced him as truly one of their own. He was a man of great compassion, great professionalism and embodied the very high standards of journalism.
Of course, the most beautiful words are not nearly as persuasive or as compelling without the pictures, and John Bean, the cameraman who also died in this crash, had been working for the ABC as a cameraman for 20 years. He had worked on a whole range of Australian television programs: Australian Story: Catalyst, New Inventors, Gardening Australia, 7.30 and Landline. He, like Paul Lockyer and Gary Ticehurst, had a fascination with and a love of the landscape of Australia and his work on the documentaries Return to Lake Eyre and After the Deluge are great testimony to both his passion and his art.
These three men will be sorely missed by their families, by their colleagues and by all Australians. It was a tragic loss and, as I said, they died as they had lived, serving the people of Australia through that great public broadcaster, the ABC.
I would also like to take this opportunity to honour another great leader of the ABC, another great journalist, Ian Carroll, who many of us have known. He is the husband, of course, of Geraldine Doogue, another very distinguished journalist. Ian had a remarkable career with the ABC. He died of a very cruel disease, a very cruel cancer. He worked right up until the end of his life. He had contributed to so many programs over the years at the ABC. He was an interesting man; he was in his mid-sixties when he died. He rather belies the view of Gen-Y that only the people in their twenties can be great innovators. He is an encouragement to all of us because he was the founder, in large measure, of the ABC program Lateline, which of course has become one of the most significant current affairs programs in Australia and really is one of the handful of platforms on television where there is actually the scope for a reasonably informed, intelligent debate about public policy, which is an enormous part of the ABC’s role.
Also, over the last decade, Ian really pioneered the entry of the ABC into the digital world. In my view, the ABC does a better job on the digital platform—on the internet, with iview and its podcasts—than any other broadcaster in the world. If people want to correct me on that then I would be very interested to be proven wrong, but I think what they have done is extraordinary. You take the way in which the reach of so many outstanding programs and Radio National have been expanded exponentially with podcasts, the way that the reach of ABC television programs has been expanded dramatically with iview and, of course, the ABC’s many websites—whether it is opinions as in The Drum or so many other platforms—have really expanded the reach of the ABC. Far from being, as one might have expected, a rather stuffy old public broadcaster, it has become a real leader in digital innovation. This was done by Ian Carroll. He was the driving force. He was the one that more than a decade ago was pushing the ABC and saying, ‘This is the new frontier. Our world does not end at free-to-air television and radio. We have to drive into the digital arena’, and they have done it very well. Ian is also deeply missed.
It was a very tragic week for the ABC to lose those four men. All of them made a great contribution the ABC—a remarkable one and unique contributions in each case. All of them are very sorely missed, so it is appropriate that this parliament records our sadness at their passing, our respect for them, conveys our condolences to their family, friends and colleagues at their work, and also in doing this, recognises the great work that the ABC does to bring our wonderful large nation together, and in particular to bring together the far-flung parts of Australia, out in the bush in regional Australia, to the clerks in the city, who in the midst of the bustle, without the ABC, would only be able to dream of the splendours that Clancy enjoyed.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (10:43): I, too, would like to rise in this condolence motion for the loss of three great reporters who told the regional story.
The ABC is the national broadcaster and whilst they have lost, in fact, four members of the ABC family last week that, in many ways, is part of the nation’s family, too, because of the stories they tell and the way they tell them. The cameraman, pilot and journalist who died in outback South Australia last week so tragically were doing what they did so well as a trio. They told the regional story, the Australian story, through the prism of the regions. They understood, better than most, the patchwork nature of our society—and that term has been used a lot lately, but each patch is different and the ability to explain those differences and present those differences is, indeed, an important work in its own right.
Paul Lockyer did this as the journalist, John Bean as the cameraman and Gary Ticehurst as the logistics operator, obviously getting them into remote areas, into difficult, otherwise inaccessible areas, certainly inaccessible for the purposes of a news cycle. They had been working together on news and feature projects in the Lake Eyre region. It was not the first time that they had been there because they had done a wonderful documentary on previous occasions in the Lake Eyre region. Like those who have had the privilege to see it with water and without water and to note the fascinating differences, to be able to record that and tell the story about it takes it to an audience that does not have the ability to access it but can nevertheless marvel at the wonderment of the change, the rehabilitation, the revival—everything that comes from the enrichment of water and flooding plains.
Paul Lockyer was one of the ABC’s most experienced journalists and he also had a great ability to tell the stories. He cut through and gave all Australians an unrivalled insight into the bush and to remote communities. He had a real passion not just for news, but a passion for the regions, and that is a great thing to see. It has been an essential ingredient of the great message that the ABC has been able to convey over the years through television and radio, but it is more than just the telling of the story, it is giving strength to the regional voice. It is believing in it, having the passion for it and articulating it in the most effective ways. All of his stories conveyed empathy, respect and a deep understanding of the issues that faced people who live and work in regional Australia. They do think differently than we do here in Canberra. They see issues through a completely different perspective and their challenge, always, is ‘how can we better our opportunities?’, rather than the hurly-burly that goes on here for so much of the time.
I mentioned before that they perished in the Lake Eyre region, but Paul had undertaken an outstanding series on Lake Eyre which he was in the process of filming. His compassion covering the recent floods also made him a household name because Paul was the voice, the only journalist effectively, to be able to get into Grantham after that devastating flood that took so many lives and changed forever the nature of that peaceful valley, a valley that carries the same name as Paul himself. But he was the voice. He was there and he was able to bring the story—the hurt, the pain, the understanding, that empathy I talked of before—he was able to bring it to the outside world, so as people were grieving he was able to demonstrate an understanding and awareness in the rest of the community of just what had happened in terms of a community that effectively had been washed off the map.
John Bean was an award winning cameraman who was with Paul at the time of the Lake Eyre series and the three were filming when the tragedy occurred. The filming, itself, will be a lasting legacy to them. It is just so tragic that they were taken in an area that they understood, that they loved and that they wanted to tell the story about.
They were experts in their field, extraordinary men who not only captured the spirit of regional Australians, but helped to tell their stories. As the ABC’s former head of international, John Tulloh, recently said of Paul Lockyer: 'He had in abundance the best virtues of humanity. So many that you would not know where to start. It’s no wonder that strangers who featured in his stories, especially in the bush, trusted him. They probably recognised the kindred country-boy spirit in him. They knew he would never exploit them and always would tell their stories faithfully and knowledgeably.'
I think that is important because the regions did trust him. He was from them and he returned to them. He never forgot them. He loved them and loved the regions in a way that he saw part of his life’s mission was to better tell their story, their challenges, their triumphs and, on a number of occasions, their miseries. John Tulloh went on to say, 'He felt for the despair and plight of farmers and their families in the dust bowls who were part of his stories.'
As I mentioned at the outset, Paul was well known for his coverage of the devastation in Grantham and in the recent Queensland floods. In relation to that, Mart Warburton of the Grantham Recovery Council said this of him: 'One of few reporters who could balance his professionalism of the job and the compassion of the heart—a true gentleman. Since the first meeting in January until now Paul would ring from time to time just to see how I am going and how the community is recovering. When he was able to come back to Grantham he would make a huge effort to try and see as many residents as he could that he knew from the disaster. We all felt that we were more than a story to Paul. That’s why he was an honorary Grantham local, a friend, and always welcome in our community.' John Bean was also a man of immense capability and popularity. He was described by his friends and colleagues as incredibly humble, positive and warm, with an infectious laugh, and like Paul and Gary was a master in his field. It is terribly important with the stories of regional Australia that the visuals are there. The skill of the cameraman is essential to complement the editing, the text and the delivery of the reporter, and John Bean was an incredible part of this team that so sadly has perished. As John’s wife, ABC Landline reporter Pip Courtney, said, ‘I just hope lots of people have a Beannie in their lives like I’ve had.’ That infectiousness and that lovability were very much part of everything that those who spoke of John are reminded of.
Gary Ticehurst was an extraordinary pilot. John Tulloh recalls this in relation to Gary Ticehurst:
In my time at the ABC there were many stirring deeds by reporters and crews, but for me there was none greater than during the disastrous 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. That is when Gary and cameraman, then Peter Sinclair, hovered in gale-force winds above stricken yachts and life rafts in tumultuous seas to coordinate their positions with rescuers, turning away only when in his calculation they had just enough fuel left to return to land. They made it with just a few litres in the tank and it was said his actions saved the lives of probably 25 crew members in that race.
It is the skills of these pilots that we rely on not only for the accessibility and the logistics work that made up the trio, in terms of the three that perished, but also the bravery, skill and precision and the ability to understand your capacity but also the task at hand and to have the determination to make the judgment, but most of all to put the saving of lives at the forefront of the determination as part of the job that he saw as his requirement to undertake.
Over the years I have had a lot to do with regional reporters and the professionals who cover regional stories. I have always found that the regional media are great to deal with. They are interested in you being there to understand their circumstances, to identify and hopefully to help. The regional reporters also call it how they see it. It does not always go our way, but that is the nature of journalism. They do know their stuff and they do know their regions and their audiences. In this tragedy Australia has lost three men who knew their audience, who knew their issues and who knew how to convey the stories of regional communities in a very powerful and compelling way. I know that they will be deeply missed and I extend my deepest condolences to their family, friends and colleagues.
Whilst I am on my feet, could I also have the indulgence to place on record my condolences for the passing of Ian Carroll, another ABC journalist whose death I think happened around the same time but after the condolence motion was moved in the parliament by the Prime Minister. I met Ian Carroll over 40 years ago when I was making it in the industrial movement and he was a reporter for the ABC in those days. It was an exciting time because there were many industrial disputes in those days when we did not have something that came to emerge called the prices and incomes accord, which in its own way helped transform the nature of this country.
I was involved in a trade union—the Storemen and Packers Union. I had just finished at university and Ian was on the round with a lot of other key journalists at the time—Ben Ainsworth, Barry Donovan, and Michael Gordon, who is still writing with the Age as National Editor. This was an exciting group to be involved in. But Ian, you knew at the time, was more than just a reporter and certainly more than just an industrial roundsman. He did have a creativity. He had big ideas about him. He went through the ABC in a number of guises but the two areas that he picked and was innovative with, and why the ABC are privileged to have these people work for them and why the nation is the better for it, were where the media was moving and the emergence of the moving media cycle. He understood that. And for that reason he pioneered the ABC Lateline program; he saw a niche. As the 6 o’clock news moved more to domestic tragedies and the like and less to political stories there was a market still there for strong political debate, and so Lateline developed and Lateline stands today.
He also understood the technology and the importance technology could play in terms of enabling the message reach of the ABC; not just the media dimension, but the message, the storytelling and all that went with it. He was instrumental in driving the ABC in the direction of the embrace of the digital economy. It is fortuitous that we reflect on that in this condolence motion, because the government is undertaking at the moment the convergence review that is looking at this whole question of the convergence of technologies. So the circumstances in which his legacy will be remembered are terribly important. I place on the record my condolences for his passing and my very best to his surviving family, in particular Geraldine Doogue.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (10:58): Over the years I have had the great fortune through my portfolio to engage with many members of the ABC regional news and current affairs world—sound recordists, cameramen and camerawomen, journalists and on occasions helicopter pilots. Having seen the work of that crew, I simply wanted briefly to record my sorrow at the loss of three of their number, all truly experienced and outstanding representatives—Gary Ticehurst, John Bean and Paul Lockyer. Each of the three had a distinguished career, but each of the three was well known more importantly still for their decency, humanity and professionalism. Gary Ticehurst, whilst a pilot of 25 years with the ABC, was rightly remembered most importantly for his courage during the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race in 1998. As other honourable members have recorded, he chose to put the safety of those in the water and in stricken boats ahead of himself and brought his helicopter perilously close to some very tight moments, but in so doing he guided a rescue crew in and was responsible—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! A quorum is not present in the committee at the moment so the chamber will be suspended until the chair is resumed.
Sitting suspended from 11:00 to 11:02
Mr HUNT: As I noted before the suspension, Gary Ticehurst put his own safety a distant second during the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race of 1998. It is fair to say that there are many families that remain whole as a consequence of that decision.
John Bean, of course, was an awarded cameraman. His work took him right around the country and he had worked in rural Australia. I make this point because, having worked with many ABC journalists and camera crew across rural and regional Australia, I have a sense of the passion they have for their job. It is important to acknowledge that they are a fundamental glue—whether we agree or disagree with any particular story—to the ability of people in regional Australia to have a voice, to have access to an understanding of the broader things that are occurring within their region and to simply be in connection with the rest of the country.
Paul Lockyer, who was of course the best known of the three to have perished in the Lake Eyre helicopter tragedy a week ago, was a journalist who brought to life the drought. He then brought to life the rains and the magnificent spectacle of Central Australia in full bloom, both for its environmental benefits but also the human stories that went with it. Again, a tragedy which perhaps became the leitmotif of his work was his role and work in Grantham in the immediate aftermath of the tragic inland wall of water that tore through that town at the start of this year.
I simply wanted to record my sorrow at their passing in such circumstances. Like many in this House, it was my portfolio, not so much my electorate, that took me into many circumstances where I have worked with ABC regional crew. They do a tremendous job. To lose three of their principal leaders was a great loss for them and the community, but above all else a loss for the families of Gary Ticehurst, John Bean and Paul Lockyer.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (11:05): Before entering parliament I had the great honour to be a union official, the National Secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union. One of the best groups of members I ever got to represent were the employees of the ABC. They were without doubt some of the most intelligent, committed and talented people I ever represented in my industrial capacity. It was with great sadness that I and my colleagues at the CPSU learnt that long-term ABC journalist Paul Lockyer, cameraman John Bean and pilot Gary Ticehurst had died in tragic circumstances. They were filming the flooding at Lake Eyre in Central Australia and the helicopter crashed in a remote location on the lake’s edge. Investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau only reached the scene on Friday night. We had hoped that it would not end in tragedy in that 12 or 14 hours after learning about the accident, but regrettably that was not the case.
Paul Lockyer was a distinguished international journalist who produced a truly remarkable body of work, and in statements in this place and elsewhere many people have paid tribute to that work. He had been a correspondent in Washington, Singapore and throughout Asia and had won a Logie award for best TV reporter. His work in recent years focused on regional and rural issues and his work on the Queensland floods this year won universal acclaim. I am quite certain that he will, tragically posthumously, receive further awards for that work. Not only that; it is clear from the outpouring of grief and regret from not only his colleagues at the ABC and in the Australian media community but also from the broader ABC family that Paul was highly valued as a good friend. The qualities that made him a good friend and a good mate shone through in his journalism and touched audiences everywhere across Australia. It is not easy to win trust let alone affection from people who are living in regional Australia, but it was clear from his reports from regional Australia that he was good with people and they in turn respected and trusted him with their stories.
At the time of the accident, Paul, John and Gary were filming for another acclaimed documentary for ABC Television on Lake Eyre. Paul Lockyer was one of the ABC’s most experienced journalists, with an award-winning career spanning more than 40 years locally and internationally. Many speakers in this condolence motion have spoken about Gary Ticehurst, who was by all accounts one of the best amongst the media pilots. I never met him personally, but I know of him by fame and reputation. On more than one occasion during that infamous Sydney to Hobart race he put his life at risk to ensure the safety of the crews on stricken yachts hit by storms. He was famous within the profession and it is fitting that his work is paid tribute in this debate.
Brisbane based cameraman John Bean worked for the ABC for 20 years across a diverse range of programs, in news and entertainment, including international assignments. In my time representing workers at the ABC we used to represent the people who were behind the camera and the people who did not generally get the fame that the journalists and others did. They were famous and well-respected amongst their colleagues but generally little known amongst the Australian public. It is tragic and perhaps ironic that it takes a tragedy such as this to make the Australian community stand up and recognise the wonderful value of their work; they come out from behind the camera and become visible to us.
These men were not only dedicated media professionals; they were also husbands, fathers, sons and uncles. I know this is a terribly difficult time for their families. I take this opportunity and join with all of my parliamentary colleagues to extend my personal sympathy to their families and friends and to the entire ABC community, who I know are missing them dearly.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:10): I associate myself with the eloquent and moving remarks of the members for Wentworth, Flinders and Throsby and the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government this morning—and others too—in this condolence motion. My sincerest condolences are offered to the families and many friends of the three ABC news crew who died in a helicopter crash while filming near Lake Eyre in outback South Australia on Thursday, 18 August. We were sad to hear of the loss of award-winning journalist Paul Lockyer, experienced pilot Gary Ticehurst and gifted cameraman John Bean in such tragic circumstances.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has a long and proud history, with news crews working relentlessly and tirelessly to bring Australian news, world news and regional news to our living rooms. Paul and John, as news gatherers, did it marvellously well. The helicopter pilot was one of the best. Australia’s media has been dealt a harsh blow. They brought to our small screens the stories of the people, the outback, rural and regional Australia—what I like to call real Australia—and the colour, exuberance, vibrancy and vitality of the bush. The media has lost three of its finest. The nation is poorer as a result. They were fine men and fine Australians. May they rest in peace.
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (11:11): I would like to join this condolence motion and offer my sympathy to the families of Paul Lockyer, Gary Ticehurst and John Bean. I knew Paul quite well and considered him a friend. I think he was a great friend of regional Australia; there is absolutely no doubt of that. His origins in Western Australia and in the country, I think, flowed through his capacity to tell the stories of regional Australia.
We share the same age, so it also brings home one's own longevity in a sense. I used to speak with Paul on the phone a bit about some of the regional issues that are out there. He would ring from time to time just to see what I thought was happening, what was not happening or what should be happening. The last time I spoke to him was in relation to a story on a piece of legislation that I will actually be introducing into this parliament on the next sitting Monday to do with coal seam gas, coal activities and groundwater issues under the EPBC Act.
Paul was one of those who are very, very astute. He was obviously a very professional journalist. I think there are a lot of journalists in Australia today who should actually look at how professional these people were—Gary as a professional helicopter pilot; John Bean as obviously one of the best in terms of his capacity to operate a camera and his ability to send the message back; and Paul as the journalist. They were a great team. But to send that message back you needed a great photographer.
The last time I spoke to Paul he actually said that he was looking forward to going back out there. We shared a common interest, I guess. We used to talk occasionally above the love of inland Australia, the deserts and the way in which water is so vital to this nation in a range of areas. I think he was particularly captivated by the way in which the Channel Country in Queensland related to that very dry area around Lake Eyre and how that region absolutely came to life when it rained in the Channel Country in Queensland.
He was going back out to do a follow-up story on that when the tragedy occurred. His capacity to tell the real story of regional Australia—the country stories—as I said probably went back not only to his roots in regional Western Australia but also to the professional edge he put to it. Too often these days we see journalists who want to make themselves the story, be part of the story or present their interpretation of the story. I think the great attribute that all three of these people had was that they were able to relate to the people they were talking to. Paul Lockyer never looked down on country people, as some journalists who do not understand those real issues of country Australia tend to do. They do not mean to do it and I do not blame them, but it sends a body language message to many. I think we saw the way that they were accepted in Grantham as well. They were not in there like voyeurs looking at the damage and trying to pick up the story of damaged people; they were there in a sympathetic way to tell the tragedy of the story of the people actually on the ground.
My brother-in-law and good friend Andrew Pursehouse and his wife, Cynthia, spent about three hours with Gary on probably the last story that they did in New South Wales, at Breeza, looking at a similar issue, the impact of mining activities on water resources. I know they represent a whole group of people right across regional Australia who have engaged with Paul, Gary and John on various occasions and told their story. Tim Duddy, who has been a champion for regional Australia as well, also spent much time with Paul on that same story in my local region.
On the morning that we heard that there had been a tragedy in Lake Eyre I went to our local ABC radio station to offer my condolences, because they are a real family. There was no-one more respected than Paul Lockyer in terms of journalism. Everybody knew Gary Ticehurst and most people knew John Bean. The emotion in our local ABC—and I am sure it was right across the nation—was palpable. People were genuinely upset. Catherine Clifford, the news announcer, did an extraordinary job—she knew Paul very well—in being able to go to air at 6.30 and make those announcements.
I make my contribution today not just on behalf of myself, my family and obviously the community I represent, but very particularly for that ABC family that is out there right across Australia who have lost these extraordinary professionals. My eldest son, who is a farmer but is also a helicopter pilot, had contact with Gary Ticehurst on a number of occasions, particularly in the Kimberley area a few years back when the movie Australia was being filmed. Right across that network of professional pilots and helicopter people they all know each other and obviously they feel for the families as much as we all do.
I would just like, if I could, to mention a common friend of both Gary Ticehurst's and mine, a fellow called Ian Wiskin, who, with Gary, was instrumental in forming the Helicopter Association in New South Wales. They were also involved in the national association. Ian, as many would know in this House, has been here on a number of occasions to represent various issues. He was very close to Gary Ticehurst. I will be attending the funeral of Paul Lockyer tomorrow in the company of Ian Wiskin and we will convey some of the messages that I have heard from other members and other members of the community as well.
I extend the sympathy of my family and that of the electorate of New England and regional people generally to the families of these people. Because of their absolute devotion to their task and their capacity to relay the stories as they really are,they will not be forgotten, particularly by country Australia. I think other members have spoken about that. We feel extreme sorrow for their families on this very sad occasion.
CONDOLENCES
Lambert, Private Matthew
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on the morning of 22 August of Private Matthew Lambert during combat operations in Afghanistan, place on record its appreciation of his service to his country and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:20): I rise on this condolence motion regarding Private Matthew Lambert, who, on 22 August 2011, became the 29th soldier to be killed on active service in Afghanistan. It was his first tour of Afghanistan with 2RAR and, sadly, his last. But it was not his first tour in the service of our country. Private Lambert served our country in East Timor, undertaking two tours of duty. An expert sniper, he has been recognised for his service and has been awarded the Australian Active Service Medal, the Afghanistan campaign medal, the Australian Service Medal, the Australian Defence Medal and the Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal. He also wore the Infantry Combat Badge in recognition of his special place—fighting for freedom, putting himself in danger to protect us.
Private Lambert was killed on night patrol on a mentoring mission with the Afghan National Army in the Khas Oruzgan region just north-east of Tarin Kowt. Private Lambert’s career in the Australian Army commenced in the Army Reserve in 2005 before he went full-time in his service of our country in 2007. As I understand it, his loss is the first loss that 2RAR have experienced since the Vietnam War—that is, the first loss of a military serviceman in action. We think now of Private Lambert’s wife, his family, his colleagues and his friends. We are devastated for them that they have lost a loved one and we are also devastated for our country that we have lost a great Australian who has served our country very dutifully and well. We will never forget him and will forever be grateful for his sacrifice.
I would also like to take the opportunity to recognise the other 28 Australian soldiers who have given their life during their service in our campaign in Afghanistan: Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Signaller Sean McCarthy, Lieutenant Michael Fussell, Private Gregory Sher, Corporal Mathew Hopkins, Sergeant Brett Till, Private Benjamin Ranaudo, Sapper Jacob Moerland, Sapper Darren Smith, Private Timothy Aplin, Private Scott Palmer, Private Benjamin Chuck, Private Nathan Bewes, Trooper Jason Brown, Private Tomas Dale, Private Grant Kirby, Lance Corporal Jared Mackinney, Corporal Richard Atkinson, Sapper Jamie Larcombe, Sergeant Brett Wood, Lance Corporal Andrew Jones, Lieutenant Marcus Case, Sapper Rowan Robinson and Sergeant Todd Langley. We thank you for your service to our country. We thank your families for their sacrifice. Lest we forget.
Finally, I would also like to record our gratitude to the 3,280 active service men and women who are serving our country overseas at this point in time in Afghanistan, East Timor, Egypt, Iraq, the Middle East, the Solomon Islands and also Sudan. We are thinking of you and we wish you to come home as speedily and safely as possible after your tour of duty.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:24): Once again I rise in this place to honour an Australian soldier who has fallen in Afghanistan doing the vital work of restoring security, peace and prosperity to that country. Today I honour the life and service of Private Matthew Lambert. In doing so, I once again offer my condolences and the condolences of all Canberrans to his family and his friends.
As I have said before, this is a town that is home to many members of the Defence Force. We are a community linked very closely with those men and women who come from around the country to serve their nation and their people. In my former roles in the Department of Defence I met many members of the Army and other services, so while I never met Private Lambert I know all too well the kind of man he was. I have no doubt at all he was dedicated, courageous, proud and honoured to serve.
I had reason the day before yesterday to join with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Veteran’s Affairs to launch the FamilySMART program, which is being developed by the Defence Community Organisation. The purpose of this program is to make sure that the families of defence personnel are looked after when their loves ones are deployed. At this event I spoke to many relatives, wives and children of members of the services who are or have recently been deployed overseas. I mention this program because I think it shows just how connected the defence forces are and just how much the death of Private Lambert will be hurting the entire defence community. It will cut deep, just as the deaths before him have done. These are tough, gritty and determined men and women and they know the risks they face when they are deployed to places like Afghanistan. However, this does not make the loss any easier.
As I have mentioned before, I have been fortunate in my short time as a member of this place to travel to Afghanistan and to meet soldiers like Private Lambert. I was very, very impressed and deeply affected by their professionalism and their dedication to their duties and to their mission of bringing stability to Afghanistan. It is not just a very important mission for ensuring that the global environment is more secure and protected from terrorism and the brutality of the Taliban and al-Qaeda but a mission with direct consequence for the safety and security of Australians here and overseas. It is a mission that is making a difference.
While on my trip we met with a number of members of the Afghan parliament, one of them the internationally renowned Fawzia Koofi. Ms Koofi is the chairwoman of the defence and territorial affairs standing committee, has a masters in business and management and is a strong advocate of human rights, particularly of women’s and children’s rights. She is also from a political active family. In our meeting she was articulate and forthright. She praised the international presence in Afghanistan and wanted it to last as long as possible because it ensured women like her were safe.
In Oruzgan we met only with men from the provincial government, army and police in Tarin Kowt and local leaders in the Mirabad Valley. All of them praised the international community’s work in building vital infrastructure, including schools, waste management and food storage facilities and women’s and children’s health centres. They were at pains to point out the gains in stability and security in the last 12 months, particularly in the last six months.
My trip to Afghanistan left a permanent mark on me and put into sharp focus the reality of life on the ground for those deployed there. It is a place that is hot and dusty during the day and freezing at night. It is a hard place. But, as is so typical of the character of Australian defence personnel, they just got on with the job. Words cannot possibly do justice to the work and sacrifice of Private Lambert or to the extent of the grief of his family and friends. Once again, all I can offer is my eternal thanks and to say that the people of Canberra are grateful and we will not forget the sacrifice of Private Lambert and his efforts, and neither will the people of Afghanistan. His commitment will not be in vain and he will be remembered.
Mr SIMPKINS ( Cowan ) ( 11:29): I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to Private Matthew Lambert. But this is without doubt another tragedy, a tragedy for our country and a tragedy for several Australian families. I pay tribute to Private Lambert, a dedicated soldier, a soldier who always wanted to serve his nation and serve the national interest, beginning with the reserve forces in Brisbane and moving on to the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment based in Townsville. Although having served two tours of duty in Timor, he had recently joined the third Mentoring Task Force in Afghanistan. It was on this deployment that he lost his life for a very good cause.
When you look at what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan, it is often open to criticism that we should not be there, that it cannot be won or that we are there for the wrong reasons. There are myriad excuses why this is not the right thing to do. However, when you look at the sort of place Afghanistan was before the war began, when you look at the evil that the Taliban and their allies represent, when you look at the very negative outcomes that the Taliban had imposed upon that country, something had to be done. As is usual in these cases, somebody needs to make a decision to do something about these problems in the world, these evils in the world. I pay tribute to those prepared to do what needed to be done. But of course the political determination is at one level. Ultimately to back up that political determination people need to be there on the ground. People need to pick up a rifle and they need to go to these places and take the action that needs to be taken. Evil needs to be opposed, bad people need to be stopped, and the women and children of Afghanistan need to be protected.
We cannot look at these people like the Taliban or al-Qaeda and say that they are representatives of the mainstream within Afghanistan, because they are not. As usual with these sorts of elites, oligarchies or dominant forces, they rule for themselves with no regard for the people. The keeping of children, particularly girls, out of education is not an element of a progressive society. It is not an element of an organisation, a government, that has any legitimacy in the world anywhere. It fell to certain countries in the past to stand up and be counted and be prepared to send in the troops to deal with these people. So many of our soldiers have served with honour and great distinction in Afghanistan. As we know, 29 have now died for the cause. It has been a cause of honour, for good in the world, and we should never walk away from that. We should never count so much the cost that our determination should ever waiver. For those who have died, it is a great tragedy and it is a tragedy that their families will always have to live with, but if we were to walk away at any point before this job is done, then so much of what they have died for would be in vain.
The trouble is that there are still evil people out there—the Taliban. As I said before, they do not rule for the people; they rule for themselves. They rule with a view of the world in a very skewed and negative manner that will never be in the best interests of the people in Afghanistan. In the future it may well be that more Australians may die, and that will never be acceptable. We should always strive to make sure that the chance of that is as limited as possible, but in the end the decisions that we make in this place and that the government makes in this place can have the ultimate impact on a family. Australians may die for a cause, and that tragedy may be repeated on many occasions yet. However, as I said before, we should never waiver from the commitment we have to doing the right thing in the world and to making the world a better place for not only people in this country but people in other countries around the world. The cause of democracy sometimes has to be fought for and sometimes Australians will have to pick up weapons and do what needs to be done.
I pay tribute to the Australians who serve today and who have served the national interest and the cause of decency, good and democracy in the world. Many have done so. They have all done so with distinction. It is certainly my view that Private Matthew Lambert, a distinguished soldier from the 2nd Battalion, did not die in vain. He died for this good cause. I pay tribute to him, a great soldier, a great Australia, and I offer my sincerest condolences to his family and his spouse. I wish her all the best and I know that this parliament, with bipartisan support, will always see these soldiers and their families are looked after.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (11:36): Today I rise to follow previous members in paying my respects over the loss of another soldier in Afghanistan and another soldier from Townsville. A member of Townsville’s 2RAR, since transferring to the regular army in 2007, Private Matthew Lambert was a sniper and part of the Mentoring Task Force. Having served in East Timor in 2009, this was his first mission to Afghanistan, and he had been looking forward to again serving his country abroad.
Those who knew Private Matthew Lambert have spoken of the respect that his fellow soldiers had for him and the skill he displayed in completing any task given to him. Private Lambert is the first member of 2RAR to be killed in action since the Vietnam War, and I know how tough the other day must have been for the soldiers in that battalion. 2RAR are indeed second to none. My thoughts are with them, though, at this difficult time. I also recognise the impact that this tragedy will have on the wider Townsville community. We are a tight community and the men and women of the ADF are a significant and valued part of that very tight and reserved community. There will be many in Townsville mourning the loss of Private Lambert this week, and his service and sacrifice for his nation will never be forgotten. Private Lambert was described by his mates as a loyal friend. His partner moved to Townsville two years ago to be with him during his post. I offer my deepest condolences to her and to Private Lambert’s family as they grieve his terrible loss.
This is the 29th casualty our country has suffered in Afghanistan and the task of mourning the men we have lost is never easy for the Defence Force, the Australian community and this parliament. However, as other members and I have said in the past, we must never get away from what is our collective determination to finish the good work that Australia’s Defence Force men and women are doing here and in Afghanistan.
Private Lambert was extremely proud to serve his battalion, his regiment and his country. It could be seen as cold comfort, but his family and friends can be proud of the job that he and his fellow servicemen have done and are continuing to do in Afghanistan. Substantial progress has been made as a result of Australia’s involvement, and we are on track to achieve our goals and our mission. This includes making the transition to Afghan-led security in the Oruzgan Province, a role that Private Lambert was strongly involved with as a part of the Mentoring Task Force. Enabling the Afghan people to independently keep their country secure is an extremely important job. It is vital for them and for international security that we stay the distance and see this mission fulfilled.
I would like to offer my full support to 2RAR, to all Defence personnel in Afghanistan, and in fact other theatres abroad—anyone serving overseas—and those who will soon deploy there. I thank them for the job that they are going to be doing and are doing. Australia has lost another brave soldier, a battalion another mate, another family a son. As Private Lambert’s partner and family enter this incredibly difficult period, I offer them my deepest condolences and I hope that in some small way the knowledge of the high regard and admiration with which he was held by all who knew him and worked with him offers some level of comfort.
I was at the pass-out parade for 2RAR, and Major General Gillespie spoke very highly of the job they were about to do. I know that Lieutenant Colonel Smith and his team were very proud of the job that they were doing. They were very eager to get across and do their work. The men and women of 3rd Brigade work very hard. They train and they are battle ready. He was at the point. To me, bravery is only a concept. Never in my life have I had to put my life on the line. To have the intestinal fortitude to take the point and lead the way for others bears noting. Private Matthew Lambert was brave, as are his colleagues. His bravery and his sacrifice has not gone unnoticed and will not be forgotten. Matthew Lambert, your deeds will live forever. You did what very few could do. You made a difference. Lest we forget.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:41): I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Defence Minister and all members who have so respectfully made a contribution to this motion, and in doing so of course have risen to pay their respects to and to honour Private Matthew Lambert.
As others before me have indicated, Private Lambert was a sniper with the Townsville based 2RAR. He was of course very much part of an important campaign we have embarked upon in Afghanistan. I did not know Private Lambert, but as a former Defence Minister I know many people like him. All of our soldiers are individuals and each and every one of them is different in some way, but there is something common to them all, and that is their courage, their high level of fitness and training, their very high level of competence and expertise, and in addition to that their commitment to their service and their thorough belief in what we are doing in Afghanistan. I am sure that Private Lambert is no exception to that rule. Nor do I know Private Lambert’s family and friends, but having spoken to so many family members of those who have fallen before Private Lambert I would be very surprised if Private Lambert’s family were not fully supportive of what he was doing, were not fully aware that he believed in what he was doing, both the cause and the way he was pursuing that cause, and that he really wanted to be doing what he was doing.
All members of the Australian Defence Force are volunteers. They undertake their task for the right reasons. I have not found an exception. All of them do it for the right reasons and because they believe in what they are doing. I also believe that both our soldiers and their parents fully appreciate the risks involved. Parents in particular are not happy about their sons taking those risks but are fully supportive of their decision to do so. We not only thank Private Lambert for his service today; we also thank his family, friends and spouse, who I should have included in my earlier comments about parents. We also thank them for lending their support to him in terms of what he had decided to do with his life. I say ‘life’, because in many senses this can be a lifetime commitment.
This is No. 29, which is 29 lives too many. One life is too many. As I have said many times in this place, both as minister and as a private member, the longer we are in Afghanistan, the more people we lose, the more difficult it will be to take a majority of the Australian people with us, or in other words to persuade the majority of Australian people that we should be there.
Again, like others, I take this opportunity to explain why we are there. We are there as part of an international force playing our role, an important role, in maintaining stability and safety in a global sense. We are also there to protect Australians, whether they be Australians here in Australia or indeed Australians travelling elsewhere in the world, including other countries in our neighbourhood.
We have seen two very significant events both in Bali and in Jakarta, very close to home. Many Australians travel to that part of the world. This is about ensuring that these acts of terror do not again proliferate and come so close to our doorstep. Can we win? That is always the question. It is a reasonable question. There is not much point in being there given the expense both in human life and fiscal terms if we cannot win. I always say that it depends on what your definition is of ‘winning’. For me, winning is the international forces withdrawing from Afghanistan safe and secure in the knowledge that the Afghan national security forces, both police and armed forces, have the capacity to maintain their own security. Of course, that only comes if collectively we play a significant role in building an economy, in building governance and in building a justice system.
I go back to the question, based on that definition, can we win in Afghanistan? I believe the answer is yes. It will not be easy. We as a country have now reconfigured our operations—I was minister at the time—to focus on the training of the Afghan National Army in particular but also the Afghan National Police, and we are still playing a role in those other areas—governance building, aid and building an economy. But our key focus now is to lift the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to a level in which not just we are confident but the international community is confident. The test is applied by NATO and not by us. It is not for us to determine when they are ready. 4th Brigade needs to reach a point where we are all collectively confident and satisfied that they are capable of maintaining their own security.
All the reports that I receive are that we are making very good progress in that regard. I do not know the detail, but no doubt Matthew Lambert was patrolling with members of the Afghan National Army at the time of his tragic loss. We are making good progress. We are getting there. It is an achievable objective and we will get there. When we get there we can leave Afghanistan with the rest of our international partners and allies safe in the knowledge that Afghanistan will not again descend into chaos and will not again descend into a breeding ground and launching pad for those extremists determined to perpetrate their acts of terror indiscriminately not only in Afghanistan but around the globe, including potentially Australia. We have been very lucky on Australian soil— touch wood—thanks largely to our very competent intelligence and security bodies. We have been very lucky not to have an event here, but we know from those we have averted that it is very possible. Afghanistan and all of its consequences for the border region with Pakistan is very important in terms of maintaining our success in avoiding such attacks.
Private Matthew Lambert, with his colleagues, was playing a very important role in that mission and achieving that objective. On that basis we say thank you to him for his huge sacrifice, we say thank you to his spouse and his family for their huge sacrifice, and we send the message to them that we shall not forget his deeds and we will maintain the course in his honour and finish this job.
WYATT ROY ( Longman ) (11:49): I rise to honour the memory of Private Matthew Lambert, who was tragically killed while serving with Mentoring Task Force 3 in Oruzgan Province in Afghanistan. Today, in this parliament, we offer our deepest sympathy to his family, to his friends and to his mates. I make particular reference to the member for Herbert, who spoke very eloquently earlier. Our thoughts are very much with the Townsville community in this difficult time and I am sure the member is providing excellent support for a community in mourning.
Private Matthew Lambert’s colleagues described him as a man who excelled at any task he was assigned to and a soldier who proudly served his country. Only a few short weeks ago I returned from a trip to Afghanistan, where I was privileged to spend time with countless service men and women of the ADF, but I was particularly fortunate to spend a day with Mentoring Task Force 3. The men and women of MTF3 are proudly upholding the Anzac legend, a legend that has seeped into our national consciousness. They are upholding courage; they are particularly upholding compassion, often in the face of significant adversity; and they are upholding the value of having a go and that eternal Australian spirit of mateship.
The men and women of MTF3 are doing an incredibly good job in the face of difficult challenges. They are providing the essential framework for civil society to be born in Afghanistan. In doing so, in providing security and in enabling the Afghan people and particularly the Afghan National Army to provide their own security, they are providing that essential ingredient that will see this nation change eternally for the better. It is now more viable—and it will continue to be more viable due to the work of MTF3 and the ANA—for locals to be part of a proactive, prosperous and peaceful civil society. It will be more viable for them to be part of that than to pick up a weapon and continue to do what they have done for generations. This would not be possible without the work of MTF3 and soldiers like Private Lambert.
It is incredibly encouraging to see on the ground the changes that are taking place in this country. These are changes that will not easily be eroded. When I was talking to members of MTF3 I said to them, ‘If we don’t get this right, is this like putting our hand into a bucket of water, only to withdraw our hand and see these changes go away?’ They assured me and then showed me some of the tangible gains that we are making. Because we have a safe security environment or a better security environment due to the work that MTF3 has done with the ANA, we have seen the opportunity for economic development to take place. A perfect example that they showed me was a short bitumen road that had been laid between two towns, providing the ability for economic development. They said that in the town at the end of the road the cost of an average commodity dropped by seven times when it was connected by this bitumen road. One of the great assets of a bitumen road is that you cannot lay IEDs underneath it. It continues this cycle of further security and further economic development.
The Afghan locals I met are forever grateful for the work that MTF3 has done and the work that soldiers like Private Lambert have done. As a nation we mourn his loss, but we should be rightly proud of what he and the Australian soldiers are achieving in Oruzgan Province. Today we rightly honour Private Matthew Lambert, a man who proudly upheld everything his battalion stands for—duty first.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Defence Materiel) (11:54): This is a terrible time for the family and friends of Private Matthew Lambert. It is also a difficult time for the Australian Army and the wider Australian community. Matthew joined the Australian Army as a reservist in 2005 at 20 years of age. When he first enlisted he joined the 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, the Fighting 9th. After 18 months he transferred into the Regular Army and was posted to Townsville with the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, in February 2007. He deployed to East Timor in the second half of 2009. He deployed to Afghanistan just two months ago as part of Mentoring Task Force 3.
The Mentoring Task Force’s role is to train the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to protect the people of Afghanistan. It is an important job. It is what ensures that the Taliban cannot just wait out coalition forces. When we leave Afghanistan we will leave an Afghan army and a police force able to protect the Afghan people. We are obviously now in the middle of what is a very deadly fighting season, and moments like this bear very heavily on the Australian people. It is important, at moments like this, to remember why we are in Afghanistan and the progress that we are making.
As I have said in debates like this before, we are in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest to be there. It is in our national interest to be there because of the threat posed by an unstable Afghanistan. An unstable Afghanistan poses a threat that reaches far beyond its own borders. It affects its neighbours and it affects us. September 11 and the Bali bombings are proof of that. We are not in Afghanistan alone. We are one of 48 countries that are contributing to the same effort under the mandate of the United Nations. We are all there for the same reason. The threat posed to all countries by an Afghanistan where malign forces take root again is a significant one. We cannot pretend that what happens in Afghanistan does not affect us here in Australia. It does, and because it does it is right that we are there.
I visited Afghanistan last month. Our soldiers told me of the progress that they are making. Our soldiers told me that where a few years ago they were at the head of a patrol, Afghan soldiers are now leading many patrols with Australian assistance. The work that we are doing in mentoring and training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army is bearing fruit. Areas where fighting was taking place a couple of years ago are now relatively stable and we are expanding our footprint into new areas of the province. Khas Oruzgan is a good example of that. The district where Matthew sustained the injuries that killed him is a very bloody, very dangerous part of the Oruzgan Province where in the past insurgents have intimidated and murdered members of the local population. That the Mentoring Task Force and our Afghan partners are now patrolling in more districts like this is proof of the progress that is being made in Afghanistan. There is much more work to do, but the strategy that has now been adopted is the right one and we are on track to transfer responsibility for security in Oruzgan to Afghan authorities in 2014. We are making progress, but if we hand over responsibility to the Afghan army before they are ready to take over we will not leave a stable and secure Afghanistan. That is why the work of Matthew and his mates is so important.
I visited the team that Matthew was part of three times in the last few months, first in Townsville in March to make sure the kitting system at Lavarack Barracks was working and that they have the equipment they need. I met with them for a second time in May this year at High Range in the Townsville Field Training Area to see their final training activity before they deployed to Afghanistan and I talked to them about the preparations they had made. The third time I met them was four weeks ago in Afghanistan. They are a dedicated and professional group of men. They are led by a good man in Lieutenant Colonel Chris Smith and they have lost a very good soldier. Matthew is the first member of 2RAR to be killed in action since the Vietnam War. I know his loss will be a huge blow to Lavarack Barracks and to the wider Townsville community.
Brigadier Stuart Smith, the commander of 3rd Brigade, which includes 2RAR, said on Tuesday that Matthew was widely respected for his professionalism and commitment to duty and ‘his death has been felt deeply within our Army family’. In addition, he said that 'a family has lost a son and a young woman has lost a partner'. Like many young couples, Matthew and his partner, Ellesse, had just bought their first home and they had planned to live a life together. None of us in this place can ever properly imagine the grief that must be consuming her at this time or his parents, Chris and Vicki, or his sister Jess, but what we can do is honour him.
Private Matthew Lambert is the 29th ADF member to lose his life in Afghanistan since 2001, the eighth since the beginning of this year. His CO, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Smith, said that he was a great Australian soldier, an Anzac. He is a sniper, which says it all. He is an elite marksman. His soldiering skills are above all others and probably pound for pound one of the toughest and best soldiers in the battalion.
Our responsibility is to be worthy of Private Matthew Lambert and the sacrifice that he has made. His father, Chris, said in a statement earlier today:
He was an extraordinary young man with everything, including incredible physical and mental agility. Matt had a great enthusiasm for living life, generously sharing his time, thoughts and ideas and inspiring us all by walking the talk.
It is our job to do just that, to walk the talk, to honour his memory with deeds not just words, and ensure that the job he went to Afghanistan to do is completed. Lest we forget.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:01): It was the happiest yet saddest of photographs. Two fresh-faced young adults joyfully posing for a social picture published in the Age newspaper yesterday. Her arm was around his shoulder and both had broad smiles. The photo portrayed just how much they enjoyed each other’s company. Ellesse Stronach, sadly, lost the love of her life when Matthew Lambert died on Monday. Matthew was a private in the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He was the 29th Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan. Severely injured by a roadside bomb in Khas Oruzgan district of Oruzgan Province, the 26-year-old sniper was flown to the Australian base at Tarin Kowt but succumbed to his wounds shortly afterwards. 2RAR lost its first member of the war. Australia lost one of its finest, the bravest of the brave. Ellesse and Matthew’s family and wide circle of friends lost someone they cherished, someone they will never again be with or laugh with. Matthew gave up his life for the greater good of this world.
Until recently Australian soldiers were rarely seen in the Khas Oruzgan Province, the farthest flung part of the province from Tarin Kowt. This is an area where the American Special Forces Base Anaconda is established. Khas Oruzgan was a violent place with tribal disputes. It has been the scene for appalling Taliban atrocities. In 2004, the Taliban killed 16 locals who were on their way to vote in national elections. In June last year Afghan police discovered the bodies of 11 Hazara, an ethnic minority persecuted by the Taliban, who had been beheaded. In November, the Taliban murdered seven Afghan police at a checkpoint in the district. However, in the past six months Australian troops have pushed east into the district alongside the Afghan National Army troops they are mentoring. According to sources, the fact regular troops as opposed to special forces are in the district is proof they and their Afghan allies are taking a tighter grip on the province.
Private Matthew Lambert was patrolling in Oruzgan Province with Afghan soldiers at 2.30 am when what is believed to be an improvised explosive device went off. It is dangerous work that he and his colleagues were doing. The insurgents have learnt to reduce the amount of metal in the bombs to a minimum, making traditional mine-searching devices useless. An elite sniper, Private Lambert is originally from Kogarah in New South Wales and he would have been at the head of the Australian, US and Afghan troops out on foot patrol in those early hours of the morning.
Private Lambert, sadly, tragically, is the 29th Australian soldier to die in the war on terror and the eighth soldier to die this year. Private Lambert was a member of Mentoring Task Force 3 from 2RAR based in Townsville. He joined the Army in southern Queensland, enlisting in the 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, in August 2005, transferring to 2nd Battalion RAR in February 2007 and being posted to Townsville. It was there at 2RAR where Private Lambert was enlisted as a sniper, and he is the first member of 2RAR to be killed in action since the Vietnam War. Private Lambert did two tours of duty in East Timor in 2009 and was awarded the Australian Active Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Australian Service Medal, Australian Defence Medal and Timor Solidarity Medal. Private Lambert was on his first mission in Afghanistan and had been deployed in June 2011.
The men and women who serve so bravely for us in Afghanistan are people of whom we can be immensely proud. They are working to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and to the world. Australia is there to help them because we are not immune from the terrorist acts planned from Afghanistan for so long. Australians have been killed at the hands of terrorist activity, and our soldiers are directly protecting our freedom to move unencumbered by the threats of terrorist activity. Their work is of great importance and the sacrifice of Private Lambert is such that, whilst we mourn his death, we should also be very proud of his colleagues’ and his efforts both now and into the future. Our thoughts are with his partner, Ellesse, parents, family and the brave Australian men and women who are carrying on the work Matthew did so well in Afghanistan. They will miss their loved one dearly.
It is during these sad times that we are reminded of the sacrifice these men and women make in order to bring peace and stability to a country so they may live a life as good and as democratic as ours. We must count the cost of staying in Afghanistan, but we must also recognise the great cost of what would happen if we withdrew. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition’s sentiment that we best honour the dead by remaining true to the cause. Private Lambert was a well-respected soldier who excelled at any task assigned and was looking forward to serving his country further in Afghanistan. Serving in rough areas barely accessible by vehicle, he patrolled the valleys by foot, manned the battlements and mentored the Afghan soldiers he loved and fought with.
In the words of the Defence chief, General David Hurley: ‘They are fathers, husbands, sons, brothers and mates. They are soldiers and Australians. We will not forget their selfless sacrifice.’ As the member for Riverina, where Wagga Wagga or, more specifically, the Army recruit training centre at Kapooka is known as the 'home of the soldier', may I say: lest we forget.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (12:07): I rise to express my deepest condolences to the family of Private Matthew Lambert. Tragically, Private Lambert was the 29th Australian to die in Afghanistan and the eighth this year. He was only 26 and on his first tour of Afghanistan. A New South Welshman by birth, he enlisted in the 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, in August 2005 and was later posted to the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, in Townsville. He had served with distinction in East Timor and together with the Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal had also been awarded the Australian Active Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal and the Australian Defence Medal.
He will be sadly missed by his colleagues in uniform who had a great deal of respect for this very fine soldier. The Chief of the Defence Force, General Hurley, said, ‘His colleagues describe him as a man who excelled at any task he was assigned and a soldier who was proud to serve his country.’
Despite this tragic loss, Australia must continue with its important mission in Afghanistan. Having visited Oruzgan Province and Kandahar earlier this year, I saw firsthand the real progress that our military is making in Afghanistan. Training the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police is the first priority, for they will be the future protectors of their country from the insidious influence that is the Taliban. In addition to the military angle, local development projects are also critical to Afghanistan’s future. Australia’s involvement in building a school, a mosque, trade training facilities and other important initiatives are all making lives better for the ordinary Afghani.
Our deployment in Afghanistan is not getting any easier, but this should come as no surprise for the stakes are high. Stability on the Afghan-Pakistan border and progress in the global war on terrorism is what is in play. Were Australia to leave Afghanistan precipitantly, hard-fought gains would be compromised and the objective of our mission set back.
Today our nation mourns the loss of Private Matthew Lambert, a family man and a soldier of the highest order. Our country will never forget his sacrifice, and our thoughts and our prayers are with his family at this difficult time. Lest we forget.
Mr STEPHEN JONES ( Throsby ) (12:10): Before this debate is adjourned I wish to associate myself with the fine words that have been said in this debate. Private Matthew Lambert, tragically struck down at the age of 26 while serving his country in a theatre of war in Oruzgan Province in Afghanistan, is the 29th Australian to have died in that campaign and, as has been said, the eighth this year. The loss of any life in our armed forces is an absolute tragedy and one that is proper that we mark here in this place.
Private Lambert was a highly decorated and highly regarded soldier who had served abroad on numerous occasions. He will be sorely missed by his comrades in arms and by his family. I would like to associate myself with the words that have been said by members on all sides of the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Evans, Mr Cadel
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:11): I am delighted to join with others congratulating Australian cyclist Cadel Evans for his very significant achievement in winning the Tour de France. I do so as a member of the Riders on the Hill group, who ride up hills a lot slower than Cadel does. Thankfully he rides a lot faster.
In July 2006 I was standing in a queue at Charles de Gaulle with my wife and daughter when I heard a slightly high-pitched Australian voice behind me. Looking around, we recognised that it was the man whom we had watched finish fifth in the Tour de France on the Champs Elysees the day before. He was later elevated to fourth in that first post-Lance tour after the winner, Floyd Landis, was disqualified for drug use. It was the best result ever for an Australian at that stage, eclipsing Phil Anderson’s two fifth placings in La Grand Boucle, as the French call the famous tour.
For the next few minutes we chatted to Cadel and his Italian wife, Chiara. He was looking forward at that stage to returning to his European home, having spent the previous 21 days riding more than 3,500 kilometres around France at an average speed, including going up mountains like Alpe D’Huez and Galibier, of some 40 kilometres an hour. Although he was obviously tired, he was relaxed and happy to talk to a few Aussies at the airport. Indeed, he enthused about returning to Barwon Heads over the Christmas and summer break. Before he left, Chiara offered to take a photograph of us, a photograph which I treasure even more since he has won the Tour de France.
It was the first time that most Australians had heard of him. If an Australian cyclist was known it was more likely to be Robbie McEwen, who had stood on the podium in Paris as wearer of the green sprint jersey on three occasions, or Stuart O’Grady, the prolific winner of track and road races, including Olympic medals. Many people even had difficulty in pronouncing his Christian name when they first heard it. But in the next two years he would come tantalisingly close to winning the tour. Somehow his Belgium based Lotto team did not seem to have the right support riders. Other teams seemed to protect their climbing stars, helping them over the high passes in the Alps and the Pyrenees. Cadel often seemed alone fighting odds beyond his control. But it did not affect his easygoing personality. At the following year’s Jayco series in Victoria, he participated in Amy’s Ride with thousands of recreational cyclists. Amy’s Ride, of course, commemorates the life of Amy Gillett, who was tragically killed in a training accident in Germany. The Amy’s Foundation works towards doing two things, addressing safety on our roads, particularly for cyclists, and assisting up-and-coming female cyclists.
On that day, after assisting legendary commentator Phil Liggett, Cadel chatted with fans, signing autographs and having his photo taken with many of them for an hour or more. I remember another occasion when we were fortunate to meet him and how he chatted away for about 10 minutes encouraging my youngest son, who had just taken up racing.
The high hopes of an Australian winner crashed the following year when Cadel finished 30th. Something clearly troubled him in that tour, but apart from some cryptic comments he kept it to himself. He also had bad luck in Vuelta a Espana, the Tour of Spain, losing valuable time with a puncture at the foot of a steep climb, yet he fought back to finish third in a tour he thought he could have won. Interestingly, at that stage many critics wrote off Cadel and said he could not win the Tour de France—he could only ride at one pace, he did not have the brilliance of Lance Armstrong or Alberto Contador and he had not won a major one-day classic. Indeed, prior to the 2009 World Championships, the Swiss champion Fabian Cancellara dismissed Evans’s chances in the road race.
Much of that criticism was put to rest in five kilometres at Mendrisio, Switzerland, in September 2009. Approaching the last hill in the 262-kilometre World Championship road race, Cadel simply rode away from some of the best cyclists on the globe and in doing so he became the first Australian winner of that prestigious world championship event. Michael Rogers had won the time trial three times and Stephen Hodge, who rides with us here in Canberra, had twice won the amateur race which was regarded previously as the unofficial world championship for time trialling, the Grand Prix de Nations. Then, of course, we had Robbie McEwen’s second placing, which was the closest otherwise in coming to wear the rainbow jersey in the road race for any Australian. It was a very fitting outcome for an understated champion who conducts himself with modesty and humility.
In 2010 Cadel had more bad luck. He crashed, he had a hairline fracture in his elbow and he finished a disappointing 26th in the event. All that turned around this year. He won one of the first races of the season, the Tirreno-Adriatico. He then followed that up by winning the Tour de Romandie. He finished second in the Criterium-du-Dauphine. Of course, as we all know now, he came out and won the Tour de France.
Australians have dreamt of winning the Tour de France for a century. Of all the world’s great individual sporting contests, it has remained outside our grasp. Edwin Flack claimed gold on the track of the first modern Olympics. Our swimmers regularly beat the best in the pool and our track cyclists have often dominated on the velodrome. But cycling’s greatest challenge has escaped us. Ever since Don Kirkham and Snowy Munro contested the 12th running of the Tour de France in 1914 Australians have returned to France in search of victory. This year they have found it, and I am sure that Cadel’s victory will encourage the many hundreds and thousands of young cyclists in Australia to seek to emulate him in coming years. I am sure that the Australian victory and that great occasion when he was on the podium on the Champs Elysees with the Australian Tina Arena singing the national anthem will not be the last occasion that we see an Australian win the Tour de France. Congratulations, Cadel.
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (12:18): I congratulate Cadel Evans on his wonderful achievement. I am not a bike rider, which is obvious to everybody here, but my alter ego is a fit person and I am an Australian who is inspired by the efforts of people like Cadel Evans. I congratulate him as well as his team, BMC, who were all active contributors to Cadel’s win. I congratulate also SBS on its wonderful coverage on the Tour de France each year.
Cadel does epitomise the Australian story. Born in Katherine in the Northern Territory, he spent his first four years growing up in the Indigenous community of Barunga, 80 kilometres outside Katherine. I am sure that when he began at the age of two riding a 16-inch BMX bike he never imagined the heights he would achieve in the cycling field. To go from that little boy of two in Katherine to the man standing on that podium on the Champs Elysees is a dream that again says Australians can achieve whatever they want with the right courage, conviction and support.
The Tour de France this year covered more than 3,430 kilometres in 21 stages. I confess I only watched 11 nights of it continuously. It was arduous for the riders and a little arduous for federal members of parliament as well, who were quite addicted to it. It is the world’s most competitive cycling race and Cadel Evans is the first Australian to win the Tour de France. He is also the oldest first-time winner at the age of 34.
Starting that last full day of the tour almost one minute behind the leader, Cadel finished second in the time trial and secured his victory in the tour overall. I think we also feel very proud that Cadel was very gracious in victory. Not only did he pay tribute to his team and to the other competitors; he dedicated his win to his late mentor, Aldo Sassi, who died of cancer in 2010. His career has been a most interesting one. Going from 1998-99, the first overall in the Mountain Bike World Cup, second in 1997 and 1999 in the under-23 World Championships, and he won the young riders competition of Australia’s very own Tour Down Under in the Adelaide Hills before converting to road racing full time in the summer of 2000.
But then, of course, he made that wonderful transition to Tour de France-type events, going away from mountain bike riding. He achieved high placings in the Tour de France in 2005, coming eighth; in 2006, fourth; in 2007 and 2008 he came second; and in 2007 he was named Australian Cyclist of the Year. In 2009 he won the World Championship road race in Mendrisio, Switzerland. All of us wanted him to win. He has come so close so many times. To watch him make that additional effort this time was quite amazing.
The ABC termed Cadel the thinking man’s champion after he wore a T-shirt in support of Tibet and the Tibetan people’s struggle with mainland China during the 2008 Tour de France. It was a gutsy thing to do. At the time Cadel commented that trying to bring awareness of the Tibet movement is something someone in his position can do. It is good to know that he is also associated with causes that he believes in and has the courage to be a well-rounded person rather than just a single-interest cyclist. Cadel is currently competing in the US Pro Cycling challenge. Cadel finished the first stage in fourth place, 17 seconds behind the leader, Levi Leipheimer. We wish him well in this ongoing event.
I would also say to Cadel Evans, thank you on behalf of all Australians, cyclists and non-cyclists for the pleasure you gave us, and to SBS. The viewing is a pleasure. As a member of parliament, I am sorry but I can see such parallels in the clever tactics that have to be used to win such races. It is not always about speed and skill. It is a tactical game. I get a bit hooked on that sometimes too. We would like to see more of that perhaps here in this place.
I would also not so much thank Cadel Evans but acknowledge that because of him and a little contribution from the coverage of the News of the World investigations and the committees in England, in the UK parliament, I did suffer jetlag for at least a week after going to sleep at 2 o’clock for 10 days. I agree with some of the things that have been said and published about Cadel. An editorial published in the Age said that his victory in the 2011 Tour de France entitles him to a place alongside the world’s leading cricketer Donald Bradman; billiards wizard Walter Lindrum, swimming legend Dawn Fraser and the crew of the America’s Cup winning yacht Australia II on the list of Australian sporting heroes who have taken on the world’s best in their field and prevailed. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald likewise described it as one of the greatest wins in Australia’s illustrious sporting history.
Congratulations, Cadel. May your career deliver to you the satisfaction and success that you have achieved so far, and may you continue to bring great pride to the Australia people.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (12:12): It gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of my electorate of Flinders in relation to the victory of Cadel Evans in this year’s Tour de France. It was Alfred Lord Tennyson in his poem Ulysses who said, ‘To strive, to seek, to find but not to yield’, and that is the story of Cadel Evans’s career as well as his victory in this year’s Tour de France.
The lessons are very simple for Australians. It is that sense of the joy of participation, the commitment to the long term, determination and then graciousness in defeat and graciousness in victory. All of these are qualities that have been embodied by Cadel Evans’s career and Cadel Evans’s victory in this year’s Tour de France.
I am delighted that, if not a Victorian by birth, he is certainly a Victorian now. Indeed, he comes from the Bellarine Peninsula, which is opposite the Mornington Peninsula. We can almost claim him as one of our own. The most significant thing to come out of it is that sense of participation, joy and purpose from pure activity and pure commitment. That is a lesson which hopefully will inspire young people to pursue their dreams, to seek that which they aspire to. It is something that I have seen talked about in primary schools. I visited primary schools in the week after the Evans victory and the kids were very excited. I think that was a great thing for an Australian but a greater thing still for young Australians.
There will be debate in coming decades, and it will be joyful debate, whether Evans, Bradman, Lindrum or Fraser is the greatest of our athletes. But I think one thing that will probably emerge is that in terms of individual sporting achievements, as great as the America’s Cup was, as great as other events, Phar Lap’s victories, as great as Bradman’s 1930 tour of England was, this will probably rank as the single greatest sporting achievement of the period up until now. Careers will be defined and it will be hard to go past Bradman’s career. But in terms of individual sporting achievements I think I would probably put my money on this one. That is for tragic sports historians, such as most of the members of parliament, to debate in years to come.
Returning to Tennyson and Ulysses, it really is the case that the lessons we learn from this will be used to inspire and to elevate Australian schoolchildren in decades to come and we will remember that the lesson of Ulysses is the same lesson of Evans—to strive, to seek, to find but not to yield.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:28): I believe that it is important that we in this place acknowledge extraordinary efforts by Australians. When one looks at the Tour de France it is notable that success requires a remarkable combination of fitness, skill, tactics, ability and just a dash of luck. There are so many things that can go wrong, often through no fault of your own. The task of a true champion is not only to master the physical and mental challenges that come with such a long event but also to take every step to minimise the chances of an accident.
Cadel Evans has done that and so much more. In a sport that has been beset by scandal in recent years, Cadel has stood out as a rider who has achieved his results on merit. He has demonstrated a commitment and tenacity that has allowed him to overcome adversity and to take his losses and turn them into victory.
Like most Australians, I do not know Cadel. I have observed his achievements through the media. As I watched, I saw him fall short of outright victory on so many occasions. But he never gave up. His result in the Tour de France this year was a remarkable achievement. That result provides inspiration for so many others, particularly in Australia. Why? Because Australians share the ride with our sporting heroes. We share the pain of their defeats and the joy of their victories. That is the stuff of being Australian. Indeed, a friend of mine, Mr Phil Kesby not only shares those sporting successes with Cadel Evans but he fixes his bike in front of the TV and he actually rides his bike during the length of the Tour de France. This year because of Cadel’s success he even rode during the replays, so you can imagine he was probably just as exhausted as Cadel by the end of it.
In Cadel’s case, sharing his Tour de France victory is so much sweeter because he had to work so hard, so much sweeter because he had lost before but had never given up. It is a comment on sport that coming second is seen to be a loss, but there is nothing like victory. This great victory will resonate throughout Australia. It will put more people on bicycles. My local retailers are telling me that this is the case. Bicycles continue to outsell cars as they have done since the year 2000 in Australia. Importantly, the more people we see on bicycles the better the health outcomes for our community. A bit of fitness reduces the risk of heart attack; we all know that. This is what Cadel has done, because his inspiration puts more people on bikes. In Ryan and in Brisbane there has been a concerted effort by the Brisbane City Council to build the infrastructure for safe cycling. With the leadership of then Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and the current Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Cr Graham Quirk, they are committed to helping ordinary people get on bicycles.
As the then Chairman of Public and Active Transport, I was responsible for planning and constructing $100 million-plus worth of bikeways and enhancements throughout the city. The great achievement that we were able successfully to deliver was invariably the difficult missing links that had been left undone by previous administrations so that we have a connected network throughout the city.
The other great advantage we have is that Cadel Evans is an outspoken supporter of cyclists wearing helmets. On his website Cadel made the point:
Physically I am completely unsuitable for almost all Australian school sports. Nearly all Australian school sports require speed and/or size.
Whilst I am sure that things have changed since Cadel was at school, it is important that we bear in mind that sport is not just for a small group of physically advantaged children.
Finally, let me say a simple well done to an ordinary bloke but in part because of that a genuinely great Australian. The image of Cadel Evans on top of the podium in front of the Arc de Triomphe on the Champs Elysees draped in the Australian flag will forever be etched in Australia’s history.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Gilmore Electorate: Steel Industry
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (12:33): Much has been said about the tragedy of job losses at BlueScope Steel in the Illawarra. Many of the workers live in the Shellharbour area of the Gilmore electorate and I would like to read a letter sent to me yesterday to show how a steelworker views the situation. Mr Michael Grogan of Shellharbour writes:
I am writing this letter to you all as a lifelong resident of the South Coast and Illawarra. I am married with 2 children that I have great hope for. I have been employed at the Port Kembla Steelworks since leaving school in 1983. In that time I have seen a vast number of changes take place both inside the works and in our community in general. Until now, I have not seen one that has had the potential to be as devastating to the community as the one announced yesterday regarding the removal of 800 plus jobs.
As a citizen of this community I am calling on you to change the way you think. As our elected representatives the time has come for change. Rescue packages, bailout packages, relocation packages are all after the fact results. When I watch the news and hear the Prime Minister and Industry Minister address what happened yesterday with political spin and rhetoric I wonder what the future is for my country as a whole.
Growing up and being educated as a child and young man, I was regaled with stories of the growth of this country. The Snowy Hydro scheme, the irrigation of the Riverina, even the building of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. All symbols of the growth and prosperity of our great nation. Perhaps I was naive and idealistic to believe it could continue. But why shouldn’t it?
We need to look beyond the ends of our noses. Bureaucracy needs to disappear. Like our forefathers, as a nation we need to start to make things happen. In our area alone a number of initiatives could go ahead that could create employment and long term growth opportunities. The raw material that we are digging out of the ground and sending to China is doing just that. They are building solid infrastructure. We should be doing the same.
What is stopping a second airport being built near Goulburn with a fast train that services Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne? A percentage of the material involved could be sourced from Australian suppliers such as BlueScope. It would certainly be a faster journey than catching the train from Sydney Airport to Oak Flats. We built the SeaCliff bridge, why don't we have a fast train that services Sydney from the Illawarra? It would drastically reduce road traffic, while again creating local jobs.
The Shellharbour Marina must occur. Why spend $100 million relocating displaced steel workers? Spend it building something that will employ them in their local area. Whether or not the residents of Shellharbour oppose it based on their own personal wants is no longer valid, it is a growth opportunity for our area. Housing estates are not long term employment options. Long term decisions need to be made
We have a fantastic port that is under utilised. The Illawarra region is a prime candidate for processing plants that are being sent overseas, provided transport infrastructure is up to scratch. Again, an opportunity for BlueScope, local fabricators and the people of the Illawarra. Business will be encouraged to invest in the area if the correct facilities are in place. Getting these facilities is going to take bi partisan support and some extra attention being focused on our region. You all need to remember that the Illawarra doesn't have the same sized coal and viticulture industry to fall back on that the Hunter region had.
The floods in Queensland and Victoria are another example of the potential for infrastructure and growth. I understand the need for environmental conservation as much as anyone, but a lot of the natural flora and fauna of these areas is no longer there. Building dams and causeways, trapping water so that we do not have periods and extreme between drought and flood, piping water to regional Australia can only benefit us all in the long run. It will also allow our native flora and fauna to flourish. There is even a tourism potential in these areas with houseboats, introduced fishing etc. The list is endless.
Lastly, the level of youth unemployment in our region has been too high for too long. Current events aren't going to help that. The Steelworks once trained hundreds of apprentices who have since gone on to all sorts of vocations. That opportunity hasn't existed for a long time. The disaffected youth of Great Britain have shown what can happen when people don't have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. What is to stop any school leaver that is unemployed for more than 6 months spending time in the armed services to learn either a trade or a job specific skill such as driving heavy equipment? They would then be able to go and work in these regional and mining areas that have a shortage of skills. They don't have to go to war, they just need to enhance their skill set. If they find employment whilst training they should be free to leave so they can take up the offer.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it has provided some food for thought with some of my ideas. Being a government in surplus due to holes being dug in the ground shouldn't be our sole focus. I urge you to look to the visionaries of the past. Seize upon their ideals and beliefs so that we can make this country grow once more. We are the envy of the world in so many ways, and we have the opportunity to remain that way through your leadership. I await your non politicised replies.
I could not agree more with Mr Grogan, and I ask that my colleagues—and I note the member for Throsby is in the chamber—to take heed and lobby the RDA for some of those projects to take place, especially the marina at Shellharbour, which would create 1,000 jobs. I thank Mr Grogan for his views and respect the fact that he is asking for bipartisan support. I assure him that this side of the politics will not make matters any worse by the introduction of a carbon tax.
Greenway Electorate: Maltese Community
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:38): Today I rise to pay tribute to the considerable Maltese community in my electorate of Greenway. I want to specifically mention a few events: firstly, the 50th anniversary of the Maltese Herald newspaper; and the 92nd anniversary of the Maltese uprising. Greenway has a long and valuable history of Maltese settlement, from the market gardens in the north, which are now being built out into houses as we speak, and Pendle Hill in the south, which for many years was—and still is in some areas—known as Little Malta.
On 30 July I attended the 50th anniversary of the Maltese Herald newspaper in Blacktown. Since its inception, the Maltese Herald has made an enormous contribution to the success of Australian multiculturalism by promoting Maltese culture and, most importantly, providing a voice for Maltese Australians. In so doing, it continues to encourage participation in the life of our community and strengthens the very deep and special ties that bind our two countries. I congratulate the newspaper’s editor, Mr Lino Vella AM, for his longstanding and continued commitment to the Maltese Herald. Mr Vella has been the newspaper’s editor since 1971 and was recognised for his service to the Maltese community in 1999 by being made a Member of the Order of Australia. It was a very appropriate tribute dinner with hundreds in attendance to honour his very fine contribution.
I would also like to mention a very special anniversary, the 92nd anniversary of the Maltese uprising, on 7 June of this year. It is a very important day in the Maltese calendar, and I was privileged to attend those commemoration activities in Pendle Hill. The Maltese uprising signalled the end of the British Empire’s hold on the small island of Malta and the birth of a nation. During this violent uprising, four Maltese citizens were shot dead by British troops. The victims included Giuseppe Bajada, Emmanuele Attard, Lorenzo Dyer and Carmelo Abela. The 1919 riots impelled the country to establish the first responsible government in Malta in 1921, the first time Maltese citizens could actually elect Maltese members of parliament.
Greenway, as I have said in this place many times, is an excellent example of the multicultural fabric of Australia and is something that I am extremely grateful for. There are some 4,640-strong Maltese community members in the electorate, which continues to grow—and I am sure we will see that in the latest census results. A big part of this multicultural landscape are the many Maltese friends who are great contributors to our local community. The Maltese community in Australia is a proud and passionate people, and they will tell you that themselves. They have enriched the Australian cultural landscape with their customs and beliefs and our society is strengthened by their contribution.
I also acknowledge the work of an individual, Fred Fenech OAM, who is the President of the Maltese Community Council of New South Wales, and his tireless efforts in a range of areas including settlement services, welfare, aged care, education, the teaching of the Maltese language, advocacy, business networking, entertainment, sport and recreation and, above all, youth. Over the years the council has taken the initiative in many issues affecting the wellbeing of the Maltese community in Australia, including dual citizenship for migrants, for children of migrants and more recently for grandchildren of migrants. The campaign for dual citizenship was started by a call to all members of the Maltese parliament in 1974. Various other approaches and media campaigns followed until the grant to migrants in 1989, to children of migrants in 2000, and to all applicants of unbroken Maltese descent only in 2007.
I pay tribute to the special and lasting contribution of Maltese Australians to our nation’s story and particularly the local story in Greenway. The links between Malta and Australia are almost as old as Australian settlement itself, beginning with the first Maltese convict arrivals in 1810. Around 60,000 Maltese settled in Australia during the two decades following World War II, and others followed in subsequent years. All have made an exceptional contribution to Australia through their hard work and faith in the future of their new nation. I feel very strongly about multiculturalism and the role it plays in our society and the diverse range of cultures that contribute to the vibrant nature of our own lives. Without the Maltese community in Australia I am sure we would lose a very important aspect of our multicultural identity.
In conclusion, I thank the Maltese community for their ongoing contribution to the local community in Greenway, reaffirm my commitment to and support for multiculturalism in their country and its ongoing contribution from the Maltese community themselves.
McPherson Electorate: Manufacturing Industry
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:42): I rise to speak about the local manufacturing businesses within my electorate of McPherson. Manufacturing as a whole has been struggling across the nation, and over 100,000 jobs have been lost over the last three years from that sector alone. Many of the issues that are being experienced across Australia are also reflected in my electorate of McPherson. The Gold Coast economy has long been considered dependent on tourism and construction, but there is also a significant manufacturing and education presence on the Gold Coast and we need to develop those sectors to support employment, particularly when there is a downturn in tourism and construction as there is at present.
Unemployment is an issue in itself on the southern Gold Coast. The most recent ABS figures for July this year show that unemployment on the southern Gold Coast was 6.4 per cent. This compared with a Queensland average of 5.4 per cent and a national average of 5.1 per cent. On the southern Gold Coast our unemployment rate is one per cent higher than the average Queensland rate and about 1.5 per cent higher than the national average. However, I am not convinced that the data represents the actual unemployment rates and circumstances that we are experiencing currently on the Gold Coast. The hidden or forgotten statistic applies predominantly but not exclusively to women. This is the part-time and casual workforce.
Many businesses have reduced or stopped completely engaging casuals and part-time employees, and this situation is not captured entirely by the ABS statistics. Arguably, the unemployment statistics for the Gold Coast are much higher than reported. However, it is not all doom and gloom on the Gold Coast, because there are opportunities for us there.
I recently visited a local manufacturer, the Rockcrush Group in Burleigh Heads. Rockcrush manufactures marine winches, mining winches and general winches as well as dredges. Rockcrush prides itself on the export of these dredges, which are equipped with the latest technology and are designed for modular containerisation, which allows for easy transportation, handling and assembly overseas. I thank the CEO of Rockcrush, Peter van den Berg, and his staff for welcoming me and the member for Indi to their site. Most of the staff at Rockcrush are skilled boilermakers and so on. Mr van den Berg explained to us that there was capacity at that site to increase the number of skilled boilermakers, but he has had issues finding quality, skilled and experienced boilermakers on the Gold Coast as many of these workers are seeking employment in regions with major manufacturing industries.
There is clearly an opportunity for the Gold Coast. We do have the capacity to increase our manufacturing and to bring more manufacturers into the Gold Coast, and we have a number of industrial estates within my electorate, including Burleigh, Burleigh Waters and Currumbin.
I recently hosted a manufacturing forum with the member for Indi at the Gold Coast, and we invited along representatives from various manufacturing industries in my electorate, and also the surfboard industry, to talk about the issues that were of concern to them. During the discussion the issue of imported surfboards was raised. Our manufacturers realise they need to compete with international manufacturers and that is not an issue for them. What is an issue is the incorrect labelling of the boards that are being imported for sale in Australia. The ‘Australian Made’ logo has been identifying local manufactured products for many years. However, alternative versions of this logo including the Australian flag or the words ‘Made in Australia’ can deceive consumers into buying goods which they believe will benefit our local manufacturers and stimulate our economy but are not necessarily made here.
According to the fact sheet titled ‘Labelling requirements for surfboards’ from the Australian Customs Service, imported surfboards:
… require a trade description with the name of the country in which the goods were made or produced …
I note that the trade description must be in the form of a principal label or brand, and there are various other requirements. Local manufacturers say this is not always the case, and the boards imported from overseas are not necessarily correctly labelled. This becomes an issue for our local surfers who want to purchase local boards and are often deceived and lured in by incorrect labelling. We call for correct labelling to assist our surfboard manufacturing. (Time expired)
Shortland Electorate: Broadband
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:48): The Hunter and Central Coast Boards of Regional Development Australia have made a joint submission to the National Broadband Network Company, NBN Co, outlining the case for the two regions to be included in NBN Co’s list of regions for a priority rollout of the National Broadband Network. The National Broadband Network is essential in this country. Regions that are successful in being allocated an early rollout of the NBN will benefit enormously. It is like the development of electricity was at the turn of the 20th century. It has the ability to transform regions and our economy. It is the ability to link in to the latest knowledge and the latest technology, to be able to work from home and your region and to be able to do so many more things locally.
Government members of parliament in the Hunter and on the Central Coast are being very supportive of the RDA’s submission, as have all levels of government. The local councils in the Hunter and the Central Coast have joined together in support of this submission, local businesses have supported the submission and state members of parliament have supported the submission. It is fairly unique to have across-the-board support for a proposal. I might add that not all the councils are Labor-held councils. I would say the majority of them are not Labor-controlled councils. This shows that those regions and those local government areas can recognise how it will benefit their areas.
I have been particularly involved with the proposal with the RDA on the Central Coast. They have been very active with the business community in promoting the NBN and the benefits to the Central Coast. This has been driven by the local business community. The local business community on the Central Coast has said, ‘We want the NBN.’ This has the potential to change our local economy. This has the potential to link the Central Coast to any part of the world. It is cutting-edge technology. This is the technology that is so important for us to develop as a region.
I pay particular credit to the Central Coast RDA Board, led by the Chair, John Dawson, a man who has previously been the general manager of Wyong Shire Council; and the wonderful CEO, Anthony Dow, who is an example of the type of CEO that should be employed by an RDA. He engages with the community on all levels. He engages with all levels of government. He engages with people of all political persuasions, and of course, very importantly, he engages with the business community.
For the NBN to be successfully integrated into a local economy you need to have the support of all the people, all the levels of government and the business that I have already mentioned. I have to pay particular credit also to Wyong Shire Council and Gosford Council, particularly Wyong Council’s general manager, Michael Whittaker, and Bob Platt, the chief information systems officer. They have put in a lot of hard work to pave the way for the NBN network to be rolled out early on the Central Coast. Early rollout is an advantage, as I have mentioned, for business, e-education, e-health and the community generally.
I acknowledge the hard work of local businessman David Abrahams, who has contributed to his local community on a number of levels. He has been an enthusiastic and passionate supporter of the National Broadband Network. Federal members are pleased to have been able to lead a delegation of business leaders, council and RDA to brief Ministers Conroy and Crean and to work closely with NBN Co in the Central Coast’s preparation for this early rollout.
Sovereign Wealth Funds
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (12:53): It was Mark Twain who said, ‘I was seldom able to see an opportunity until it had ceased to be one.’ It is a warning the Gillard government would do well to heed. On the back of China and India’s historic industrialisation, Australia is enjoying a once in a generation mining boom. Our terms of trade are at a 140-year high and the Australian dollar is at levels not seen since the floating exchange rate was adopted in 1983. Treasury estimates that the mining boom will produce a windfall gain of $30 billion for the government in the current financial year, on top of the $65 billion that has already flowed to Labor since its election in 2007.
What is more, these so-called rivers of gold show no sign of abating. In a speech earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Dr Martin Parkinson was at pains to emphasise that we are seeing not a temporary appreciation, but a sustained shift in the exchange rate. The terms of trade may come back slowly over time, with Treasury estimating a fall by around 20 per cent over a 15-year period. Such a prediction will see the Australian dollar, in Parkinson’s words, ‘remain consistently high for some time’.
This is both a challenge and an opportunity for Australia. Ensuring the competitiveness of our manufacturing base and other important exchange-rate-exposed sectors, like tourism, will not be easy. Workplace reform and productivity gains will be key. But at the same time Australia has a unique opportunity. We must save the proceeds of the boom and invest it for a time when it is needed most. International experience would indicate that a sovereign wealth fund for a commodity-driven economy like ours could be an appropriate vehicle towards this end. Sovereign wealth funds are not new. Kuwait established theirs in 1953, Abu Dhabi in 1977 and Norway in 1990. Owned by the government, these funds and others like them in Chile, Russia and Qatar hold, manage or administer a diverse set of financial assets in the pursuit of commercial objectives. They are distinct from state-owned enterprises whose remit often includes the ownership and operation of commercial businesses.
It is estimated that today around $4 trillion in assets are held by sovereign wealth funds. While other mature assets classes like pension funds are significantly larger, it is expected sovereign wealth funds will grow significantly over time and could surpass $6 trillion by 2012. In other words, they are here to stay. A sovereign wealth fund can perform a number of different functions. It can be the source of long-term wealth creation, otherwise known as intergenerational equity, or have a shorter term objective to stabilise revenue cycles. In the case of the former, when the finite resources run out, future generations will still benefit from the wealth created. In the case of the latter, when commodity prices take a downward turn there will be money available for governments to call upon when it is needed. In both instances, countries that use the significant reserves of a sovereign wealth fund to invest offshore may see downward pressure on the exchange rate, providing welcome relief for the non-commodity export sector, which constantly lives in fear of catching the Dutch disease.
In terms of determining the best fit for Australia, Chile’s sovereign wealth funds are quite instructive. In 2006, Chile morphed its existing copper stabilisation fund into two funds, the first of which is a pension savings fund which they seeded with $600 million and contributed 0.2 per cent of the previous year’s GDP to on an annual basis. In the event the fiscal surplus is greater than 0.2 per cent, the fund can receive a maximum of 0.5 per cent of GDP. Significantly, no withdrawals are allowed from this fund for the first 10 years. The second fund, which began with $5 billion and now has more than $20 billion, is the recipient of fiscal surpluses when they are above one per cent of GDP. Given Chile’s strong commodity based economy, both these funds are designed to provide the government with fiscal flexibility should the commodity cycle turn.
This is the key point the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, fails to understand. We are talking about commodity cycles. Domestic superannuation is not a sovereign wealth fund, as he likes to tell us. It provides no insurance against a downturn in a commodity cycle, nor does it impact the exchange rate in the way a sovereign wealth fund potentially can. The minister, like the rest of the Gillard government, is deaf to the calls for a sovereign wealth fund from senior business leaders like Mike Smith at the ANZ, Ralph Norris when he was at the CBA and the Fairfax chairman, Roger Corbett; nor does he hear the words of the IMF and even Australia’s own Reserve Bank Governor, Glen Stevens, when they raised this issue. There is no excuse. Treasury’s own briefing to its ministers, released under FOI earlier this year, detailed how the Secretary General of the OECD, Angel Gurria, called for a countercyclical Chilean style fund to smooth macroeconomic fluctuations. Maybe the minister does not read his brief.
On our side my colleague Malcolm Turnbull has made a very considered speech on this subject and Joe Hockey suggested that it is the Maserati of public policy. They are much more attune than the government is.
There are many issues that need to be fully fleshed out; least of all is paying back the $100 million of Labor debt and returning that budget back to surplus. However, Australian policymakers have responsibility to play the long game, and a sovereign wealth fund is part of that decision making process.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I remind the member for Kooyong that under standing order 64 he is to refer to other honourable members by their titles or by the names of their electorate.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:58): Australia boasts having such an advanced and comprehensive safety net for our citizens. Medicare is undoubtedly one of the world’s finest health care systems, with universal access to quality and affordable medical treatment. We do not regard it as a luxury; we regard it as a right for every Australian citizen. Unfortunately, however, there are people that are falling through the cracks. This is highlighted with the need for long-term care and support for Australians that live with a disability. Every person in Australia knows someone affected by a disability. Those with members of their family suffering from long-term disability understand the emotional, physical and certainly the financial impact it has. There are too many Australians who, as a result of their disability, feel disempowered and unable to live independent lives.
Compounding this lack of autonomy, disabled people are often disproportionately likely to face economic hardship, social problems and, very disturbingly and most unjustly, those suffering with intellectual disabilities or mobility impairment are more than likely to be unemployed, welfare dependent, live in public housing, and many you will find in our jails. Currently, people with disabilities tend to be reliant on the love and commitment of parents and the extended family, assuming that they will provide all the necessary support and care. As horrible as it may seem to mention, what happens to these people when their parents pass on? That is something I am regularly asked in my electorate. What I am advocating for is for social and economic justice. I am talking about the government finally introducing a national scheme that provides insurance for every individual who has been dealt such a hard hand in life and suffers long-term disability.
I speak, of course, of a national disability insurance scheme. The scheme has recently received the attention of the Productivity Commission in the production of its recent report. In addition to being an equitable and just arrangement, this new initiative contributes to the productivity and sustainability of our nation. The commission has reported that by providing an insurance scheme the growth in employment for people with disability will be 100,000 people by the year 2050. That is certainly a boost for national GDP. Furthermore, 4,200 carers who have had to give up their work will have the opportunity to re-enter the workforce. The initiative requires $13.5 billion to be set aside each year by the federal government. However, given the potential economic gains to be made it seems to me that the benefits certainly far outweigh the costs, particularly if we describe ourselves as a caring nation.
As the National Disability Service points out, increasing disability employment has a microeconomic implication specifically addressing Australia’s ageing population. I regularly get to meet with and consult with disability groups in my electorate, no doubt as every other member does. The message that I have received is rather clear and unambiguous. They see a need for more support to be provided. I recently met with the staff, carers and clients of families during my DisabiliTea that I had with the Australian Foundation for Disabilities, known as AFFORD. This foundation provides employment skills, development and accommodation, and supports over 1,400 people with disabilities and their families. Within my electorate I also hosted a disability forum to engage with families about the issues that affected them on a day-to-day basis. One of the main issues that was raised at the forum was the need for a national disability insurance scheme, and that is what I communicated to Parliamentary Secretary Jan McLucas, who also attended that forum with me.
I am proud to be a part of the Labor Party that has taken this issue that has historically been committed to the periphery and brought it to the front and centre. I, along with my colleagues, see great opportunities for areas such as schooling, housing, jobs, and essentially basic areas that we take for granted to be accessible to all. Australia is one of the few Western nations that has ratified the United Nations rights of a person with a disability and now it is our responsibility to act on that commitment.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:04
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australian Defence Force: Housing Assistance
(Question No. 447)
Mr Robert asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, in writing, on 4 July 2011:
In respect of rent payable over the last ten years for personnel living in (a) married quarters, and (b) all other living quarters: how many times has the amount payable changed; in what years; and by what proportion (as a percentage).
Mr Snowdon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Group Rent Scheme (GRS) (including rent allowance, Service residence and living-in accommodation) member contributions are reviewed annually and adjusted in line with the increase in the cost of Defence housing assistance. It is a long standing policy that Defence should subsidise 50 per cent of the national cost of housing for Australian Defence Force members and their families with members meeting the remaining 50 per cent.
In past years the level of subsidy provided by Defence has increased due to greater than expected fluctuations in the Australian housing market and in 2009 the Defence subsidy was at 56.53 per cent. In the same year, the CDF and Secretary committed to a subsidy correction program to return the Defence subsidy to 50 per cent. In 2010, Rent Bands 4 and 51 were adjusted to achieve the 50 per cent subsidy and in 2011 Rent Bands 2 and 3 achieved 50 per cent subsidy. It is anticipated that the final subsidisation for Rent Band 1 (currently at 53.32 per cent) will be corrected in 2012.
The GRS updates broadly reflect the annual market rent cost changes faced by the wider Australian community.
(a) The amount payable for Service residences (married quarters) has changed once every year since 2001. The proportion of change as a percentage for specified contributions for:
(i) Service Residences for Members with Dependants;
(ii) Service Residences for Members without Dependants 'not sharing'; and
(iii) Service Residences for Members without Dependants 'sharing'
are provided in the table at Attachment A can be obtain from the House of Representatives Table Office.
(b) The amount payable for rent allowance has changed once every year since 2001. The proportion of change as a percentage for specified contribution for rent allowance for:
(i) Members with Dependants; and
(ii) Members without Dependants
are provided in the table at Attachment B can be obtain from the House of Representatives Table Office.
The amount payable for Living-in Accommodation has changed 12 times since 2001. The contribution is based on rank, sharing arrangements and the level of accommodation. The proportion of change for these figures are set out in the table at Attachment C can be obtain from the House of Representatives Table Office.
__________________
1 Rent Band 1 – PTE to LT (excluding WO2 and WO1) Equivalent
Rent Band 2 – WO2, WO1 and CAPT Equivalent
Rent Band 3 – MAJ and LTCOL Equivalent
Rent Band 4 —COL and BRIG Equivalent
Rent Band 5 – MAJGEN and above Equivalent